DETAILED PS2 SITREP (Summing Up All the QQ and PS2 Issues)

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by carbonite, Apr 8, 2013.

  1. Clonecenter-resident

    You're kidding right? they do this all the time. here, let me show you how it is done.

    patch notes when/pigs/fly
    Increased magazine size to 12
    Adjusted direct hit damage
    Adjusted splash radius
    Adjusted splash damage
    Increased maximum ammo storage to 240 (base)
    Increased direct hit damage to vehicles (should now be 2-3 shots to kill)
    Adjusted splash damage
    Adjusted splash radius
    Increased reload time slightly to account for higher damage per shot
    Slight tweaks to projectile speed and drop.
    Gravity will now have a greater affect on your projectiles, effectively increasing your
    projectile speed even more if you are over your target.

    With patch notes like these everyone will think they got buffed and you end up with the same result I suggested. it's a win/win for everybody!
  2. ThePackage

    Great series of posts, this is the thing that sticks out to me. NMG is incredibly unbalanced at the moment and needs some serious retuning.
  3. cCheers

    I'm going to have to disagree very strongly with a large portion of your posts. Some of your proposed solutions are a bit extreme and others are just not necessary. I'll have a more elaborate post tomorrow. A large expansive posts deserves a large expansive answer at least.
    • Up x 2
  4. Arquin

    Common sense and logical debates? ON MY FORUMSIDE2?
  5. Zapon

    We need more ambition in this game by far- it's what drew me to this game, and several others, i'd bet.

    @ OP

    I can't see how reducing "zergs" is a good concept to follow though -since the allure of Planetside 2 is the scale it offers that no other game offers. If a Platoon Leader wants to summon 30 tanks, or more* then they should be able to do so- regardless of if it takes a strenuous resource cost, it should be possible to do in-game. The motto is that size always matters- that should always be true to a great extent.

    I suspect the upcoming lattice changes will not make them so random- but inherently there is nothing wrong with masses of players moving together. How they move together can be tweaked if needed, and that is about to happen. Outfit- or Non outfit, a Platoon Leader with 50 tanks shouldn't have to break up his forces.

    ******** Regarding the current status of Planetside 2- I know the devs have seen this, but I'll say it again. While my experience in this comes from playing Sony Computer Entertainment and Zipper Interactive's MMOFPS called MAG- there should be a system put in place so that we are not limited to 48 people a group.

    For starters, the easy to do this would be to use the method they put in for Squads forming platoons- have it so that one Platoon can invite another Platoon to merge to form a company. For the GUI, there's several taken on this- one would be a window that lets you zoom out and see the multiple platoons, instead of the 4 squads in your own platoon.

    You would have to add a OIC or Company Commander- someone who controls the Platoons.

    The voice coms would need a re-work probably to suit this- and MAG had a really awesome system hammered out for this- I could go into massive detail, but I will refer to a guide I wrote for MAG's Voice comms -

    The main difference between MAG and Planetside 2's voice comms is that Planetside 2's are meshed(which is not necessarily a bad thing) - for example a Squad Member can use Platoon chat and talk to anyone in the entire platoon. Everyone can hear everyone - the only exception where PS2 starts to become like Mag is the Command Channel AKA the Squad Leader Voice Chat that connects all Squad Leaders(and should connect platoon leaders, but is currently bugged where Platoon leaders who aren't a Squad leader cannot use the voice comms of the cert). This is a exclusive channel that not every single person can use.

    In MAG, you could only talk to your Squad, and your Squad Leader could talk to the other Squad Leaders and the Platoon Leader , and the OIC(if he was in your Platoon). This had the drawback of really relying on people with microphones- and sometims people would do a vote to kick on a Squad Leader who didn't have a microphone- but they then partially solved this by having the game recognize who had a mic, and giving them high priority for leadership positions. Planetside2 doesn't randomly choose leaders except when a current leader suddenly disconnects or quits, so aside from those scenarios they might not have to deal with this as much.

    Regarding Companies- while MAG had up to 4 platoons in a Company- I would encourage the PS2 devs, if they pursue something like this, to look into doing 4, or even More platoons. Or taking this a step higher. I know this is ambitious, and that the planetside2 playerbase might not ...ever in-game, reach these sorts of numbers in groups- you could probably get away with a max of 4 platoons in a company, for a total of 192, for the life of PS2 - but we need a little ambition.

    My own personal fear is that a system like this would discourage large non-outfit platoons(I currently lead platoons , but not as part of a outfit- there's very few non-outfit Platoon Leaders who are left in PS2, at least on Waterson from my observations)- but looking at how Outfit Platoons are likely taking up a larger percentage of the biggest groups in-game, this is happening anyway.

    I'd rather not make a massive post that rivals the Opening Post- at least, not right now, so I'll move on.

    Agreed. I am sure the devs have already talked about this and have probably ruled it out, but I wouuld not mind a limited- AMS for a Galaxy that let a squad that dropped from it into a base respawn at it while it is still in the air , perhaps still within the region. Perhaps with a slightly longer timer than a Sundy AMS(going off the assumption the sundy is intended to be the main spawn support tool for assaults). All those variants of the galaxy , sound awesome. It really does need some help though- to expand it's use.

    i agree with the coaxial gun, but surely we can do even better?
    While i would prefer crews over 1 man tanks , I feel like the tanks should have more options available. Someone recently brought up a anti-RPG sort of attachment that made me think of this

    This would take some reworking of the objects- used for projectiles from rocket launchers- but it wouldn't be unprecedented since Phoenixes if i am not mistaken have some pretty advanced stuff going on not too far from this.
    That's one idea- and theres a million variations that could be done. A manually controlled one by a 2nd or 3rd gunner, a auto controlled one if auto-guns are ever considered, etc.
    I'd also like to see a zeroing scale become standard on tanks(you can probably tell i've played ARMA by this)- so you can set your main gun to a certain range, and easily engage at long range. This would require adding a laser rangefinder.
    Another ...mooched ARMA idea, would be a gun that automatically zeroes itself based on where your crosshairs are. While the vehicles in ARMA that have this can switch it off and on to reflect real life- options available to gunners- we don't have to go that far xD.
    I have a feeling this has been ruled out(I apologize- i've been spoiled slightly by the ARMA series and SOCOM Confrontation on this matter) - but I'd like to see a proper thermal gradient map for not just entities,but everything in the game. Night optics need a very massive overhaul, and i've gone into a lot of depth in this thread on this.

    I know i didn't address balance issues as much as the OP did, but i felt these are some PS2 additions that could help.

    Tippership Commander /Zapon

    • Up x 1
  6. Andy79

    was the "redeploy gamefreeze" issue in the OP ? I just skimmed over the headlines and saw nothing and until that is fixed I couldnt care less about anything else
  7. Sweet Jackal

    Going to just bring up highlights from my own thread on some of this. All of this relates to Tanks.

  8. Sweet Jackal

    And when talking about the HA class I will always be on the side of adding more options to the class, giving AV rifles and AI Launchers, over cutting back the base flexibility of the class. Adding more choices and the ability to specialize will have the same end effect on the battleflow of the class, players will nearly always make the exchange of greater effectiveness at the cost of flexibility.

    More viable options means more strategy and tactics to the game and promotes teamplay to cover the weaknesses that players are choosing to create in their own loadouts. It will improve the experience behind the average infantry player overall as well as cut back on the number of players toting about AV options at any given moment.

    Taking this philosophy to utility slots and it's options, providing attractive options to cert into other than C4 will have the same effect on the overwhelming amount of C4 being used in the game.
  9. Rolfski

    I think it will be interesting when they flesh out the vehicles more so you can cert/specialize into very specific roles.

    However, I disagree with your ideas to nerf "vehicle spam" because this is exactly what makes this game so epic and makes you as a player feel empowered.
    Mandatory vehicle crews is also player limiting and therefore a bad idea. It should be optional: Want a badass canon on your tank? Cert into a gunner seat.
  10. TheBloodEagle

    There's always someone trying to nerf Heavy Assault's special ability.
    • Up x 1
  11. Sweet Jackal

    My own guilty pleasure when it comes to tank designs? Side Sponson Weapons. Not completely practical but it's a way of adding specialized firepower where it can do good.

    And it brings us a step closer to the awesomeness that is the Leman Russ.
  12. raw

    This is a collection of about everything I have suggested so far, nearly word for word. OP be readin my mind!
    • Up x 1
  13. biterwylie

    Thank you for your time writing that up, and I totally agree with 100% of your section on vehicles.

    Two things I disagree on though.

    Lock On launchers do not IMO need to be buffed. They are a crutch weapon. I would agree that the dumb fire options should be rewarded with more damage.

    Heavy Assualts - I do not think this class should have shotguns. They are already far to versatile and having all the other classes weapons hinders making the others classes useful. I would give shotguns to LA and Engineers only.

    Loved your thoughts on vehicles. Wish they could be implemented tomorrow.
  14. Wasdie

    I cringe every single time I hear somebody advocating 2 man tanks. All I can think about is watching my Vanguard gunner in Planetside 1 miss a Prowler right in front of us 10 out of 15 shots. How I've wasted several days of my life sitting in a tank watching gunners miss left and right, getting extremely frustrated but not being able to do anything about it because I was not in control. I never got to gun a tank either, nobody ever wanted to pull one for me to gun. The only way I could use a tank is if I pulled one.

    I hate every single aspect of that. I can't see any positive that outweighs that negative. I currently watch 1/2 tanks get destroyed by 2/2 manned tanks now and wonder why people don't use the 2/2 tank more often. Why do we have to be forced into not being able to use our own tank that we pull despite the situation not changing at all. A 2/2 tank will always beat a 1/2 tank. I don't know why that isn't enough for people. I just don't get it.
  15. Shockwave44

    If a sunderer is as important as you say it is, just slapping more health on it won't make gameplay better, it'll make it worse. They already fixed mines from exploding on non-stationary vehicles so all you need to do is cert into blockade armor. Problem solved.

    Also, it should not have more guns on it. If it's so valuable, then defend it with stuff you already have like, oh I don't know, the people inside of it? Just because it has more armor than a tank, doesn't mean it should act like one.

    With every other vehicle, you're separating them into smaller niches but with he sundrer you're doing the complete opposite? I don't think so. If you want to add more seats in the MBT's, then one of them can get out and repair their own tank.

    Or you could stop driving on the road where 99% of the mines are located...

    I'm sorry but everything you suggested for the sunderer should not be implemented.

  16. joe smo

    vary good post, however i only really disagree with one thing.
    making locks across the board faster to acquire and in some cases increasing their range.
    with out mentioning the flairs ;).

    so may i say flairs could be given limited ammo that needs to be resupply at a landing pad, or longer effect when poped, or faster cool down time just to name a few ideas.
  17. Shockwave44

    What part of "heavy" don't you get? You know what you do when you see a heavy? Same thing when you see a max, you run and don't approach him head on. Stop being lazy and tailoring the game to fit your needs. His job is to be in the front lines, absorbing bullets just so he can shoot the tanks. This has nothing to do with 1v1.

    Oh, and I've been killed by smg toting infiltrators as a heavy so stop whining.

    I don't care one way or another because I'm not a noob who wastes AV ammo on infantry.

    As a heavy, even I have to decline this offer. The decimator does 2000 dmg already and should only be used within 50m.

    You can't decrease lock on time and increase damage. I don't get it. You complain about the NMG on the heavy being an insta-win yet with rockets destroying tanks, you want to make them more lethal?

    The decimator will one shot an ESF. You want the nemesis to do more damage than that?

    If you want to make fun of you, I will. You want the NMG to be reduced but in return, you want to give them grenade launchers?
  18. Anubis132

    I've always believed that Planetside would be a happier place if vehicles were tougher (not more powerful), but less numerous. I'm not sure how best to achieve this, as my favored solution, the multi-crew MBT, is rather disliked by a lot of people who have not played PS1. We like to tell them that's why the Lightning exists, but they don't seem to accept that as a solution for their 1-man tank needs.
    • Up x 4
  19. Zorro

    Your suggestions are very well thought out, better than mine could ever be.

    Instead of having upgrades for each vehicle, have specific vehicles designed for each role, as I have laid out in my thread. This would allow more variety in the game (I would like to have as many different vehicles as there are guns), and would make it more balanced.

    Rocket launchers should OHK infantry, as it is only fitting in such a low-TTK game. However, it should be almost impossible to use in close-quarters, and it should be difficult to hit infantry.

    Heavy assault troopers should receive assault rifles, as well as light assault, and engineers should keep their battle rifles. Light assault should not receive stand-alone grenade launchers.

    In addition, the resource system should be adjusted. Resources should be delivered from producing bases by ANTs (from Planetside 1) to be distributed among the soldiers. In addition, the NTU system should be brought back and ANTs would bring the nanites from the warpgate. This would make sieges and attrition more effective.

    Rather than having a plethora of weapons with slightly differing stats, there needs to be better weapon customization, allowing players to tailor their weapons to their needs.

    There needs to be a better leadership system, with a distinct chain of command. Zergs would become proper armies, and the game would be much more fun. Other suggestion threads I have made are merely unnecessary features that would "season" the game.

    All in all, excellent post!
    • Up x 1
  20. FigM

    I read the part about air units.

    I come to conclusion that you don't really understand how game design and game flow works. I'm sorry you spend so much time writing this.
    • Up x 1