Battle flow

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by adamts01, Jun 6, 2019.

  1. adamts01

    Fights shouldn't end and pick up on another part of the map just because a base flips. We should strive for persistent fronts, where defenders get pushed off a base, and defend the territory between that base and the next, or even push back from the walls.

    Sunderers have proven to be inconsistent.

    We should have mini capture points leading up to the next base. Similar to Wrel's plan with vehicle capture points, as something that you can basically roll through, but may have to fight at if defenders build a base. We should have those checkpoints everywhere. Give these checkpoints a simple bunker and a spawn option. There would need to be some terrain changes to give infantry a chance. Think trench Warfare.

    Sunderers at the enemy gate would be quicker, but bunkers would serve in a pinch to get troops to the next fight, just with a little running involved.
  2. Scroffel5

    Yes. Players, though, can decide to go back and get an armor column ready, and defend in the space between bases.

    The day before yesterday, this happened. It was NC v TR, and we were trying to get their base and they were trying to get ours. Basically, we just kept spamming vehicles and had AWESOME fights between the bases. Everyone had fun. There was a bridge that we were fighting on, and that was fun. I was on a stealth AV Flash, trying to take down vehicles. It worked out for the most part.

    I like the idea of mini capture points. I just think that if players really thought about it, they could do things to make the game better, like an unwritten code of Planetside or legendary tactics and strategies. Think amazing leaders and war heroes that are remembered forever, and people that did stupid things that either worked or failed (i.e Leroy Jenkins). If we as the players thought to do things that would be considered a war strategy, we could make the game more fun. I mean, this is still like an open world sandbox, so we do have a bit of control over our environment. Think being outpopped by an armor column, but they haven't gotten to the point yet. So you quickly organize the Infiltrators to pull stealth flashes with Heavies and Medics on the back, and you transport them to the next base to take the point, or you try and take out the armor in the back. Think how confused the enemy would be, a platoon of highly trained combatants, and they didn't see it coming. Think going down in Planetside 2 history for being the best platoon leader. If we played this game like it was a real war, it would make a difference.
  3. adamts01

    Cats need herding. Players need to be nudged towards good fights. You mention playing this game like a "real war", but that's essentially what zerging is. Crushing helpless opponents. You don't want competition in war, but this is a game, where competition is necessary for it to exist.
  4. DarkStarAnubis

    That doesn't work in PS2 since there is no "Front" concept in the first place. You move troops by teleport and build assets (air/ground) on place by using nanites with zero delays, logistics does not exist, production does not exist, raw material does not exist, POL does not exist, ammo does not exist. In other words, war in PS2 has no time/space/money constraints.

    The only limitation is the lattice grid: connections and nodes.

    What you are suggesting is to increase the number of nodes in the lattice system but given the fact attack can come from any direction or location without space/time/money penalty (see above) you wouldn't achieve very much.

    A particular nasty point to attack can then avoided and isolated, both in real life (see WWII Blitzkrieg of Germany to move around the French Maginot line or the US leapfrog tactic to jump from island to island in the Pacific isolating Japanese garrisons) and in PS2 when regions are isolated.

    If you want to increase "stability" you have to reduce the number of lattice connections (thus creating unavoidable choke points, which make sense to fortify, man and defend) and give more freedom to the defenders to build/extend the base defenses with additional buildings/turrets/walls which must last more than 10 seconds under fire and do not decay.

    Personally I would love changes in that direction (coming from ArmA) but I doubt will ever be implemented: latest PS2 changes are going in the opposite direction - think about changes to Bio-labs, since those generate prolonged fights, link the surrounding regions by connecting them with additional lattice links so Bio-labs can be bypassed at will.
    • Up x 1
  5. Scroffel5

    Yeah, I know, but we can still do as we please for the most part. You don't have to zerg, and putting all your forces into one base is strategically stupid, because in a real war, you don't respawn. While you are at one base, your other bases are being taken, then the enemy has the advantage. They have all your toys. In a real war, zergining isn't what you would want to do, but since you respawn in Planetside, its less of a disadvantage. Players can still take your other base while you are zerging, and they do, but that doesn't really compare to the power of your zerg.

    Yes, the players need to be herded. That is why a game has to have structure. You kind of have to treat your players as stupid, defenseless babies, and walk them through the basics, then let them loose a bit as you go on through the game while still maintaining structure. You give them limited freedom. We can use that limited freedom to do more with the game. The things we want to do, we are usually capable of doing. The thing is, players play for incentive. If they aren't being rewarded, why do the extra work? Thats a terrible way to work in real life, but in a game, it works. You only do what you are payed for, so why go through the extra work to, for instance, beat a zerg, when we can fight as the underpop and try to farm as many as possible. Hey guys, its free certs. I don't need to do the work to win the continent. I just want certs. That is the mentality of most of the Planetside 2 community. They play for certs. That playstyle will make the game less fun for you in the long run, because when you have the certs and everything you want, the game dies down for you. At least that is what I have seen. To have the goal of winning while still having fun makes the game more fun. If it is more fun, that means more players will stick around, giving the game a longer life, with more updates because of the added staff and playerbase spending money. That is how a game works, really. If it isn't fun, you won't spend money on it.

    My point is, should the devs structure everything? Probably. Do we have the power to do these things? Yeah, we do. Does it mean we will do them? No. We can add to the battle flow more easily if it is structured out correctly than if it isn't. I think what would have added more to the battle flow is a longer redeploy timer. If people couldn't redeploy every 10 seconds, then it may be more beneficial to go to a base and get a vehicle. Think convoys of vehicles moving from base to base, giving support. Think, for instance, an Infiltrator with a sniper, staring down convoys from a distance, judging where they are headed, and calling back to your team to give intel on that so they can send in an ambush to attack them. None of that is structured, but it sure sounds like fun. We can do it now, but it would be easier if it was structured. We can do a ton of stuff we probably haven't even though about now, but we don't because we don't have to. To have more fun, immersion is key.
  6. JibbaJabba

    PS1 had a lot more "minor" towers inbetween main facilities if memory serves.
  7. adamts01

    Sorry for the novel. But I think this is a really good idea, and fits with the direction this game is going.

    I've talked a lot in the past about the Hybrid Hex and giving armor something to do by extending the fight around a base. This is different. This is basically adding mini points along current lines. This does two things...

    1) It forces ground to advance along a line, and not simply skip from base to base. This also creates a reason for PMBs. Those bases couldn't be skipped, and they'd have to be fight at. Those road blocks could be a serious force multiplier and really help hold a line.

    2) Instead of a fight basically ending when attackers win, and possibly starting up and the next base, these mini points would have a simple bunker with a capture point where infantry could spawn and fight from. Think of those insane foot zergs to the next base. That wave of infantry would be the norm, except they'd be met right outside the gates by people holding that open ground. And possibly a PMB built at that bunker. What I mean by a front, is not a line across the map, but a line across the lane. So I'm not envisioning one long trench parallel to the enemies, but more infantry-friendly terrain so troops could advance and be pushed back inch by inch. "Persistent Front" is used because there's an immediate and local place to move the fight after a base cap/defense. The fight doesn't end. Since fights wouldn't start and stop out of nowhere, like currently, populations along lines should stay a little more consistent. That should help everything from new Ayers not noting where to fight, to doubleteaming, to zerging.
  8. DarkStarAnubis

    That won't stop a Zerg, since the amount of raw DPS generated by the few defenders in the bunker is simply not enough to inflict any significant damage to passing air/ground vehicles (they would simply keep moving and be out of reach in a few seconds, how many rockets you need to kill a tank?) and infantrymen would simply be rezzed by Medics while others are tossing smoke grenades in front of the bunker. If the defenders get out, they will be shredded.

    So the Zerg will just pass and move on, why waste any time on that tiny outpost when you have a juicy power plant immediately after?

    Don't get me wrong: I like the idea, but PS2 is not designed with that level of tactical game-play in mind, just an endless "Live, Die, Repeat" mechanism.

    And that assuming the Zerg has only ONE direction to go so you can concentrate defenses knowing they will come. But that is true perhaps on Hossin, the other continents (especially Indar and Esamir) are so open that once you get a base you can press the attack in 2-3 other directions easily, bypassing that tiny bunker anyway.

    UNLESS you consider those mini nodes as prerequisites to attack the base immediately after, in other words you can't zerg the big power plant unless you get have taken one or more of its outposts: but even with that limitation, you have basically introduced additional nodes in the lattice thus slowing down (but not stopping) a Zerg: If the resources of a big base have been unable to stop a Zerg, how could an outpost do something better? It is mere attrition, nothing more.
  9. adamts01

    Yeah, the idea was that these bunkers are mini check points that can't be bypassed. The capture time could be 15 seconds so they aren't a hassle if there aren't defenders.

    Zergs aren't an easy fix... The idea is to stabilize pops on a line so when you fins a good fight, it doesn't dissappear.

    Redeployside nerfs would limit the effectiveness of zergs. So at least they wouldn't be so effective as well as so annoying. Then at least committing to a lane would screw the others. But then there's doubleteaming. Yeah, **** this game... Maybe PS:A will get it right. But at least mini points between bases would keep good fights going.
  10. DeadlyOmen

    Contrived gameplay dumbs players down, and offers no replay-ability.
  11. Demigan

    I think this will backfire.

    First of all because the new spawn system will cause havoc on spawning on the base you want each time.

    Second, there are a few bases where something like this works, like between Indar Excavation and Quartz Ridge. Simply because the distance and terrain allow it. There is enough space to gather a decent vehicle force at both bases, there is enough distance between the bases to allow the defenders to pull vehicles and the terrain allows the defenders to see, engage and pose a threat to oncoming enemies as they approach to buy more time for the rest of the defenders to get vehicles and defences ready.
    On top of that, the tower and buildings of Indar Excavation allows infantry to fight the vehicles with some effectiveness, and Quartz Ridge also gives the defenders a good solid view and enough cover for the infantry to attack the vehicles as they approach.

    But contrast that to the Subterranean Nanite Analysis that has become an empty point between Xelas North Gate and Silver Valley, and almost all other points that function like this. There is relatively little time for the defenders to pull vehicles because the point in the middle doesn't stop anybody, they just stick around long enough to cap it and move on. These points are also rarely used for PMB construction, if only because the risk that the fight never returns there during your play session and your time was wasted. Which is another reason why PMB equipment needs to be more immediate rather than a long drawn out thing you have to do before a battle ever gets there.

    Adding a small bunker is a good idea I suppose, but won't really make much of an impact and will undoubtedly screw people over with the spawnsystem.

    I think that rather than extent the time between bases with more points, you should put more defensive layers on bases. For example imagine if you had a few capture points that aren't connected to the lattice, and once captured give players benefits. A spawnpoint, a vehicle spawn and potentially some benefit for the base these capture points are associated with. Such micro-bases could do anything from providing a teleportation grid to providing access to trenches and tunnels to creating a shield that prevents access to large sections of the base as long as it's in defender hands, simply providing a few turrets to oversee and engage the road access towards the base etc.
    You spread the attention and create secondary objectives with these micro bases. They could be reinforced by PMB's and increase the time it takes for enemies to engage a base. You could just drive up to the base, deploy a sundy and assault it, but it would also mean that you leave the enemy with multiple spawns and places that generate protection measures for the base you are attacking. Maybe you are blocked from parking your Sundy in the Sundy garage, or important gravlifts and jumppads are faction-specific until you manage to capture the associated base and they become useable by all factions, they could provide access to a button that activates/deactivates light bridges giving one team an easy time getting in and out of an area etc.

    You can even use such micro-bases as a way to generate a lattice-link that normally doesn't exist, allowing you to reshape a local lattice system to circumvent something.
  12. adamts01

    If the population consisted of nothing but organized squads and platoons, nothing would need to be changed. No matter the enemy's play, there's a good counterplay available to organized teams.

    So think of this less as a fix to a broken map, but a fix for broken players. The idea is to keep a fight going. Right now, fights appear and disappear. Instead of lanes being connect a dot, they'd act more as a slider, gradually moving up to, taking over, and past a base. All the while giving attackers and defenders a place to spawn that'll keep the infantry fight going. I'm envisioning trenches and extra rocks for a little infantry cover, but vehicles would absolutely shine here. So infantry could be a little buffer till defenders fall back to pull armor. The real trick would be keeping Sunderers viable. And PMBs would have a serious role as road blocks. They'd finally be included in the meta.

    Another thing, you've got this idea that falling back and pulling vehicles is the answer. But right now, it's more efficient to just redeploy and gal drop something else. Strike where the enemy isn't. But, if bases were more connected to each other, with semi-open ground that needed to be fought over, then you'd really have a need for armor columns. And just like your "onion" idea for bases, the outside layer could include one if the bunkers, and once one side started to take over the base, the enemy bunker on the other side could swap to be the vehicle capture point. This would give armor a constant role at those bases that would otherwise be a pure infantry fight. Maybe those outside bunker points could only activate at a certain population threshold, so off-hours fights could stay condensed, but prime time fights wouldn't revolve around cramming a while platoon in to a single room for a point hold.

Share This Page