[actual discussion] How can we promote more field fighting?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Van Dax, Oct 23, 2013.

  1. Bape

    Well first you need to fix NC empire specific weapons / abilities if you want more open field fights.


    1. Phoenix 300m range limit/ long reload/ 1 round/ bad damage/ can not coordinate with this weapon/ can be shot down
    2. Raven 295m range limit
    3. Aegis shield worthless in long range scale battle and only useful in a 1v1 situation but that's rare in this game.
    4. Basically everything else is shotguns how can NC use this in a more open field battle?


    VS - best at long range open field fights
    1.Lancers - long range instant shot weapon with squad it deadly to any tank or air
    2. Vortex - same as lancer a squad of max game over for all tanks
    3. ZOE
    4. magriders secondary weapons
    5. Flare

    TR- can compete with VS in long range
    Striker - need I say more?
    Prowler AP 2 round snipe marathon- need I say more?
    TR fracture
    TR harasser marauder

    What im trying to say is NC sucks at open field battles especially long range ones thanks to their Empire Specific weapons and abilities. Basically an open field battle that evolves tanks/max/air/infantry will favor VS/TR more since they have more coordinated long range empire specific weapons and useful abilities over NC.
  2. Van Dax

    read point one and then revise.
  3. Bape

    Dam how did I miss that first line lmao. But my point stands NC empire specific weapons/abilities suck compared to TR/VS in a open field battle. No need to revise even if they remove the range limit they are bad at coordinating with squads.
  4. Phazaar

    Increased populations will bring about a lot more between-base fighting, as the tug of war then isn't just over the capture point, it's over the entire route to the next base.

    I don't see the need for 'mini-bases' as this really is what Sunderers SHOULD be doing - the issue is that they're not contested in their approaches at present.

    Increased reliance on vehicles and less concern about spawnroom shelling would have a similar effect. Vehicles naturally fight over larger areas as their killzones are larger (and render distances too) - if they're more of a threat to infantry and countered only by more vehicles, this will naturally occur. Concurrently, bases are already increasingly reliant on infantry, owing to the necessity of having infantry to take a base, and the hilarious base design we're seeing implemented. The former step is what should have prefaced this; it really has to follow it.

    Removal of the lattice would be a great help; by funneling people to 'the next base', you create a tidal wave effect at the moment of capture, where there is no way the defenders can move back, redeploy at strength, and hold against the wave of pain coming their way. What could be implemented is a system where base connections fluctuate, are perhaps player controllable, and vary according to population (i.e. creating more front lines when more players are online, and less when they're not, or more complexly, creating more front lines for the higher population side, some of which they cannot advance on, but must hold, thus allowing a lower pop faction less vulnerability and more chance to push).

    This would work to disincentivise zerging whole continents, and incentivise 'proportionate response' and seeking fair fights so as not to disadvantage oneself strategically for the sake of an easy capture. This would then slow down the 'steamrolling' effect which would then create more balanced fights, which would naturally occur between bases more frequently than our current situation of 48 people rolling against 2 or 3 and obviously immediately reaching the 'next base'.
    • Up x 1
  5. Phrygen

    Improved map design.

    Currently fields are either completely open, a rocky and craggy nightmare, or incredibly restrictive roads with cliffs like amerish. The result is either free reign for vehicles, vehicles being completely unable to traverse land, or vehicles being sitting ducks.

    So to answer your question: Capture nodes between bases, and trees.
    • Up x 1
  6. Van Dax

    enforcer would benefit greatly from actually being able to be used the way its supposed to, (it only gains an advantage over the vulcan at 125 meters so range is good) so you won't get instagibbed by infantry by actually fighting in the field. The mag would get its advantage of dodging but only if it stays well far back (400-500m) in which case it won't be covering infantry as efficiently.
    of course the saron has no drop but it does deal much worse dps than the enforcer and halberd past the 150m mark, and well no drop is our trait it would be nice to have it apply once or twice.
    open field NC maxes kinda suck yeah, kinda something I expect to change before this could ever go live, for now though they'd clear out those bunkers real nice and can totally tank an ap round.

    I feel like the SAW and SAWS can compete quite easily with VS ranged weapons, I think rather the TR will be behind in the LMG department.
    though I could see a potential NC velocity buff to come with it.
    • Up x 1
  7. Vastly

    300m or 200m, you're still not explaining how you envisage this will work. How is tanks killing infantry more efficiently at 200m, rather than 300m, going to promote more infantry field fighting? You aren't going to get much use out of your Battle Rifle holding an AV weapon dodging tank shells. It's the infantry gameplay equivalent of sitting behind your tank with a repair gun.
  8. SerialNumber1221

    open field battles are not going to last long unless there is a steady supply of troops to the field of battle...

    spawning at a base and running all that way isn't exactly efficient

    so obviously sunderer's are key and they need to be kept alive

    i think the game already has one core element which everybody forgets in these discussions - teamwork.

    people complain their sunderer gets blown up. well, why didn't you squad up or if in a platoon, order a couple of guys to man tanks and AA maxes within close vicinty of the sunderer at all times? i'll tell you why, because most people just want to run around killing people and then complain when someone blows up their spawn point in the middle of a battlefield.

    easy fix: fragmentary orders

    give squad leaders the ability to set objectives eg defending a sunderer and those who do "work" in the objective area eg kills, repairs, revives, get bonus xp - make it double. kind of like defence and attack bonuses but what to defend or attack is determined by the platoon/squad leads.

    this type of system will give players real incentives to defend field spawn assets as well as repair armor etc. in fact a frag order should not be limited to vehicles - you should be able to give an order to assemble in a particular area and clear it out...target enemy installations, repair stuff etc

    right now, squad leads and platoon leads place waypoints on sighted sunderers and say go get em, blow it up, this suggestion would actually give incentive for doing the work

    incentive means people more likely to follow orders

    followed orders will lead to longer field battles.

  9. Van Dax

    This would be included in the planned mission system.
  10. WyrdHarper

    They should also make bases harder to take. None of this silly 3 minutes to capture a base and being able to spawn camp a spawn room.
    Quick capture timers make it difficult for allies to reinforce with a counterattack or push. If major facilities were designed to take a long time to take, allies could organize armor columns to attack the enemy reinforcing lines or flank them. Lattice + short capture timers make tactical maneuvers not as useful or fun as they could be. Major facility lattice with long capture timers and hexed minor bases would make them much more useful.
    Imagine if major facility territories expanded to encompass bases 2-3 hexes away (in the current system), and they were capturable like the satellites in the old hex (a la Amerish). Then give major facilities like a half hour timer, but each satellite captured reduces the cap time[so if you have every satellite it's about the current time], so bigger groups could divide and go for satellites, or push straight for the facility to take on the enemy forces while smaller allied groups capture satellites. Maybe once the resource system is in place, also make those satellites be supplied with resources from the main facility, so if you capture a satellite you're draining and using enemy resources (though to be balanced it should probably be at an inefficient rate--ie if you drain 100 resources from the enemy, you can only use 60 of them). It would introduce a lot of tactical gameplay, and drive dynamic field fights between satellites and the main facility. Plus, it would introduce some epic fights and give a real sense of accomplishment. Finally Capturing Eisa District or Rashnu Laboratories, or Wokuk County after hours of big fights would be so satisfying, and it would effectively eliminate ghost capping.

    An easy fix for spawn rooms would be to enclose them entirely in a building. Now you say, well enemies can still camp like that! Not so, I say! Use things like shelves and other ingame assets to create doglegged hallways past the spawn shields so that allies can exit the spawn room into cover, while the enemy has to walk into a firing lane. Also raise spawn buildings up with ramps to the ground, so as you're exiting the shell building you have the height advantage over tanks. Although if you do the system I mentioned above, you could also entirely remove spawns from satellites, saving yourself a lot of trouble. You could still spawn AMS' from satellites you own, but all your spawn points are going to be vulnerable, which would greatly favor the defender (since they could still spawn at their facility). It would encourage hot galaxy drops onto satellites, since you'd have to go past the main facility to get to ~half of them, which would be very risky for a sunderer (and much slower).
    • Up x 1
  11. SerialNumber1221

  12. Rentago

    you know why fighting outside happened so frequently in planetside 1?

    There was a LOT of things in your way, cliffs, bridges, water, rocks, forests, etc.

    you know what we have here? Dirt, lots of it, as far as the eye can see!

    the thing is these maps aren't filled with the kind of cover planetside 1 had, and they say there is no possible way for them to put water on the continent which is also baloney.

    Look, see that river they made? Its like they basically put that water affect over a crater and simply put something like a painfield under it to simulate DROWNING, no one knew how to swim in planetside 1 why would that stop them from adding water this time?

    next they make an invisible wall that only prevents magriders from falling through it and DONE we have water! WOW LOOK AT THAT.

    no really they could add water, it wouldn't be the physical liquid soup they want, but it would be better than NO water at all.
    • Up x 2
  13. Bill Hicks

    I agree with you mostly on AV. I think lock ons and ESPECIALLY the engie turret needs more tuning. Dumb fires are ok.

    I think you are missing a big problem. Terrain does not support infantry movement. It's simply too easy to get farmed.
    Also I think stronger sunderers that trade firepower for defense would make for alot better land war.
  14. MavCooL

    TL : DR
    Ever since Raven, Vortex, and Fracture enter the frame, MBT and such can't even fight on the open terrain longer than it supposed to
    Not to mention the used to be armor denial striker and the very long range lancer ( Skip the phoenix becoz that is a junk )
    Or even the AV turret that can shoot outside of the render range to destroy armor...

    For more field fighting to happened then all AV long range and lock-on weapons must be destroyed
    and then we will hav infantry shootout in the open field, tanks in open terrain fighting at each other
  15. ThreePi

    Thinking that removing the lattice will bring about more open field fighting is ridiculous. Open field fights come across when two large forces meet in an area between two bases, that requires the "defending" side to be able to predict where they're going to be attacked and mount a counter offensive. The old hex system makes predicting enemy movements and mounting counter-assaults unnecessarily difficult.

    I also don't think increasing the distance between bases will help the situation either. To promote sustained open-field fights you need to be able to reinforce easily. Which means you need to field new vehicles quickly, not gonna happen when there's significant travel time between two bases. The most open-field fighting I've done has been between Howling Pass Checkpoint -> Abandoned NS Offices -> Mao Southeast gate. Easy access to vehicles on both sides, some cover for infantry, and lots of flat space for vehicles to move around. Mao Southwest Gate and Briggs Laboratories is kind of similar.
    • Up x 1
  16. deggy

    I've been contemplating tank-infantry interlinks myself. How could armor help its infantry?

    Several thoughts came to mind, and they're very different roles for armor.

    1) The front-line pusher. The tank as a linebreaker, protecting its infantry brethren by tanking shots and helping them get within engagement range. Requires HEAVY, HEAVY armor and the ability to not insta-gib friendlies on contact.

    2) The fire support. The tank sits back, shelling a position and holding down the enemy so infantry can push in. Requires extended infantry render range to allow long-range bombardment, and possibly reduced splash damage to allies.

    3) This is my least favorite. The guardian. The tank is protecting its infantry from other tanks. This all sounds great in theory, but if you give tanks that role, you end up in a situation where armor can only fight armor, and once that battle is decided, it's pointless to have.
    • Up x 2
  17. Phaze

    Too many bases.
    A base in every hex.
    No real reason to fight outside the base, the base is the best defense.

    * I'd like to see some hexes without bases or capture points, in between base hexes.
    * To control these you'd have to setup a special Control Sundy inside a designated chunk of the hex.
    * Control Sundy would need to be a lot more sturdy than the current Sundy.
    * On deploy it gets an opaque dome shield similar to the ones on base gates. It could be walked through and infantry guns could be shot through it, but no AV or vehicle weapons.
    * If players show the ability to exploit the shield, even though I'm hoping the opaque feature limits this... make the area around the Control Sundy no_rez.
    * The Control Sundy would not be a spawn point.

    It would be necessary to control these hexes to have access to attack bases.
    Control Sundys would be destroyed by armies finding them, going inside the shield and then C4/AV/etc.
    One Control Sundy could be setup per hex. First come, first serve. Once a faction's Control Sundy is destroyed - there would be a 5-minute timer until the same faction could deploy another in that particular hex.
    • Up x 3
  18. Bill Hicks

    it would have been interesting if Sony made the certs for Tanks more defined. Then tanks could be more powerful because they cannot fill every role.

    Only with destructible objects do tank actually fill their real role. Breaking defenses.
  19. bobek388

    This idea would be good if bases would be more defensible, right now it's too easy to take over bases and with this stuff it would be even easier.
  20. deggy

    If you know the armor is coming, right now it can't get within render range of the base itself.
    • Up x 2