How can you balance population system? Last a few weeks Vanu is severly underpopulated on servers where I visit and sudenly Vanu outburst and overpopulation?!
i totally agree here since my outfit has not those big numbers and we´re not willing to follow always the zerg, we´re are still able to do some side manoveurs to break up the enemy zerg in the current system a smaller outfit can act operatiomal to help spliting up forces on enemys which we did quite often in the past..and very successful it´s not about ghost caping bases, it was more like flanking the enemy and forcing them to react on other points that´s how real wars work also, force the enemy to split up also, as sidenote imo the current system would work much better if defense would give u also xp maybe if the enemy is nearly done with taking over a base (the bar is already on theirs side to go up) and defenders manage to take it back and defend it..it should give also a good amount of xp that would maybe prevent that the masses just to follow the zerg always to gather XP
Agreed, we need at least empire coloring of the "neutral" territory to make them feel more useful and give the appearance of a front line.
Haha I do rememer your name from the fights. I would have been McDili or McDiliTR. Can't remember which, but yeah. As for the rest of the thread, keep the feedback comin!
This is something I heard a few times especially in the big fight around zurvan, but I think this is largely something people need to adapt to, it may still be a real problem, but I think it's premature to be making any major changes to this. My observation was that this ultimately did encourage defence of these outposts, creating active battles all around the area, which was pretty damn awesome in my opinion. The cool thing was that once this was done and you pushed out, then you just didnt have to worry about it, leading to a greater tactical emphasis on securing the area, and making the overall battle harder, more drawn out, and more dynamic... all good things I think. And naturally more rewarding and advantageous once the battle is actually won or lost, as pushing our further results in a much easier to defend area (by virtue of being more condensed). That said, I've got no problem testing other ideas with this to see how it pans out =p
Dropping the shields, means no enemy resistance to keep the attacking players occupied with. If we take PS1 as an example, Generator got killed, remaining resistance got cleaned up and after a few minutes, people started to clowning around this resulted in a lot of friendly fire and team killing. Instead, when the SCU goes down, have the base capture time be reduced by 25% speeding up the base capture. By passing a base should be an option available. By passing it might sound easy, but it also leave a gab in your defense, not capturing it means you leave a weak spot in your defense the enemy can exploit as you front lines push further away from the base.
Your experiences may differ from someone else's. I play in a large outfit(You already know my background) and when we outnumbered our enemy, we outnumbered every backcap attempt they threw at us. We usually muster up 3 platoons, over 100 players. If one enemy platoon of players split up, 1 squad to 4 points behind us, we could send 2 squads at every base they went to, to ensure we got it, and still have 4 squads on our frontline. How does it make us vulnerable to do that? The platoon of enemies are split up between 4 territories in this scenario, and our main force is operational on the front with no opposition. You can come up with any scenario, but the only time small groups will triumph over large ones is when the large ones are disorganized. In that case, you can still triumph over them in lattice. A disorganized zerg doesn't typically have the best morale. Defending against them will be made way more possible with the long cap timers. But, no matter what territory mechanic you have in this game, a large group that is equally as organized as the small one they face will most likely triump every time. A better solution is to balance the vehicles and add more depth to the game mechanics to make population imbalances easier to deal with. The whole combined arms thing, right now my outfit roles with at least 2 platoons of infantry and if we can muster it, another platoon of Mossie pilots with rocket pods and Rotaries. So, if the balance was properly done, an armor column with MBT's and Skyguards should put us out of our misery. Unfortunately, MBT's are very lacking right now so we aren't threatened by them. There's so many other mechanics that could be discussed to add depth in the game that would make population imbalances less impacting, but that's another topic all together and I don't want to stray off topic. The bottom line is, it should be a rock paper scissors game, except instead of 3 different base tactics(Rock, Paper, and Scissors) there needs to be like 9. Territory mechanics will not change the game from a numbers game no matter what the case is. Pyro is right that lattice accentuates population imbalances more, but the problem of pop imbalances are not caused by the territory mechanic, as such it shouldn't be a deciding factor for or against lattice. The solutions to that problem are available, and it has nothing to do with territory mechanics.
Flow of battle felt a lot better, and the small outposts around the violas were greatly designed. Point C on the Crown still feels way too far away, and the stronghold remains the BEST example of a defensible base. Some of the bigger non-facility bases need more defensive assets. More high walls, maybe another turret or two, and walkways to get around.
Just wanted to add my two cents to the spawn camping debate, for what they're worth. I think the best way to alleviate the spawn camping problem is with another partial spawn room/base redesign. Most of the smaller bases are constructed with a selection of small, copy pasted buildings, and the spawn room. Now, the DO bases differ in design and layout but for the most part, the smaller single cap point outposts are more or less the same. The spawn room is removed from the cap point, and the defenders have to cross open ground to reach cover, or the nearest cover that they can reach will have hostile infantry taking cover inside it. This promotes spawn camping, both for the attackers to keep the defenders locked in the spawn room with vehicles and infantry, and for the defending infantry to camp inside the spawn room, to try and pick off attackers, rather than pushing out to recap the base. My idea is this, the spawn room should be included inside, or at the very least, conjoined to some of the other buildings inside the base. We've already got this in larger facilities, by way of tunnels. However, tunnels can also be camped, and in smaller bases it wouldn't be hard to have a group of people on each tunnel exit. As such, I think that the spawn rooms should be built into some of the larger base buildings. Please forgive my lack of paint skills or screenshot prowess, but for example: If the spawn room was connected to the other building, it would mean that tanks and aircraft would not be able to camp infantry from that side, only other infantry. It would also give the defenders a chance to actually break out on that side, since if the attackers wanted to camp the spawn, they would be forced into a direct line of sight with the spawn shields. This however, only encourages the defenders to camp inside the newly made corridor, to try and farm attackers. So, to compliment the idea of having the spawn room directly connected with other buildings in the base, we should also have an SCU. The SCU could be protected by an SCU shield, that instead of requiring a generator to overload, could simply allow the attackers to pass through it once the base had been neutralized. We already have something similar with main facility outposts. When the cap point is flipped, the terminals inside the spawn room can't be used by the defenders. Ideally I think the SCU shield should function in a similar fashion. It would give the defenders real incentive to move out from the spawn room, in order to either neutralize the point and rescure it to protect the SCU, or to simply defend the base. If the SCU was shielded in such a manner, it would also mean that you could not overload the generator without adjacency to the facility, since you would have to already have be half way through a successful base capture in order to stop the defenders spawning. TL;DR: I think the spawn room needs to be physically conjoined to other buildings inside small bases. This stops tanks and aircraft from camping the spawn, forcing any camp attempts to be infantry vs infantry. Combined with a shielded SCU that could be overloaded once the base capture was half way through, it would force the defenders to leave the spawn room rather than just farming kills. This could also work with previously mentioned ideas of having the spawn room generate a pain field once the SCU has been destroyed.
I think that with the new lattice system, hexes should be completely replaced with a directed graph. Each outpost being an edge would have a set of directed edges pointing to the neighboring facilities that can be attacked once it is captured. In most cases the connections would be bidirectional, however with the key points with the satellite bases that would no longer be the case: The satellites would point only inwards and to neighboring satellites, with only the main facility permitting the further attacks. Something like on this diagram: Note, I never played Planetside 1, but from what I have seen, there were some graphs there as well, right?
I think it's going to come down to semantics between us on this one. I feel a better way of putting it is a large group that is just as organized will be able to react to whatever the small group does -period- due to numbers. This doesn't guarentee success, it just tips the scales to favor the large group across all battlefields. However, it's still a net gain for the smaller group. Which are better odds, 1 squad vs 2 or 3 platoons vs 1? In the smaller group, player skill is going to make a far bigger difference than the numbers in determining the outcome than if the enemy can literally just throw bodies at the problem until it goes away. Additionally, it forces them to be more organized to deal with the threat. If they're not, advantage smaller force. If you're splitting into 5 different sectors and maintaining command and control, there is no way you can tell me that's not a more notable display of organization and leadership ability than then telling everyone to bum rush a building like the Russian army until they run out of bullets. Obviously, there is more to small scale tactics than that; but with the numbers advantages you can pull, that will be just as effective as anything else, if not moreso. Your outfit will obviously be fine, but it also puts a limit on what level of skill you can use to effect the battlefield from a tactical movement standpoint. It utterly eviscerates that element for everyone else. Vehicle wise, yeah... As a mossie pilot, an armor column usually just turns into a cert pinata. They should be good against tanks, but there should be something for the skyguard to make it more resistant against airborne weaponry. Poor thing goes down too quickly due to the maneuverability advantage ESF's present, and a decent lib pilot can out damage a single skyguard with ease, then bugger off behind their lines and laugh at the absurdity of the entire thing. When infantry is better suited for the job of a tank, it's not a good sign for its balance. There's plenty of other balance issues as well, but that's a discussion for another day. Also, don't take what I'm saying the wrong way, I'm not going to sit up here proclaiming the lattice is the end of planetside, I'm just offering my opinions on a major issue that's going to crop up in hopes that we can make some improvements to before it goes live. Overall, it will be a much better system for the average player. It's just different and much more railroady. Unfortunately, to me it feels like its gone too far in the other direction.
I haven't had a chance to play on the test server yet since I've been away the last few days, but I think the new map is pretty confusing. This new lattice system is shifting the focus away from territory and back onto bases, like it was in Planetside 1. But looking at the hex links on the map I get the feeling I'm still fighting over territory, and because of that all those grey areas are really bothersome. I think it would be less confusing to link bases with lines again, like in PS1. I don't like the idea of being able to use the satellite bases to go around the main base. That again defeats the purpose of defending these bases to begin with. What's the point in trying if the enemy just bypasses me entirely and continues on down the lane? They've got nothing to lose after all. If we stay and defend the base they take all the territory behind us, if we leave to defend that territory they'll easily walk into the base later and nab it, since it's on their side of the front line now. No. You should have to capture the main facility in order to advance. And if it turns out that a particular facility is too easily defended (aka. a hopeless meatgrinder) then that facility should be redesigned. I think x2cygnus has the right idea here.
Overall, I agree that the lattice is a definite improvement over the Hex system, because it makes it much more clear to new players where they can, and should go next. (This was the biggest benefit the lattice system in PS1 gave players as well.) Each player needs to be able to understand individually (eg: without consulting a commander) where the next possible locations for attack are, and WHY they'd want them. (That said, I think that the incentives for attacking one location over another are very poorly communicated, and the rewards themselves are still not satisfying.) Lastly, the hex capture "tubes" still felt weird sometimes. There's a strong incentive to only ever follow the "hex tubes", and creates a sort of "road blindness" where you stop noticing the actual roadways that bridge bases that don't have a lattice connection to one another. Part of me wishes the lattice system were just done the same way it was in PS1, so the map didn't highlight certain roads but not others. So my Tl;Dr feedback: Lattice system is a definite improvement. New players I brought onto the test server had an easier time navigating the lattice by themselves. Incentives for base capture feel underwhelming and are poorly communicated. (New players don't care about resources). Base capture incentives should be non-quantifiable. (Eg: Can or can't pull tanks. Do or don't have shields.) New lattice system creates a sort of "road blindness" where players tend to follow the highlighted routes only, and ignore paths that aren't being overlapped by the hexes.
I will just post my reply to Hotshot's topic in the PS2 forum. And sorry for the spam in different topics. --- I couldn't agree more with the OP! In the current system it's possible to find battles of any size, leaving the player/outfit to choose one that best fits into his playstyle. Throwing the Lattice System now(as it is) will transform every encounter in some kind of trenches fight in every lane. This linearity will make every fight looks similar, becoming repetitive and boring, and that isn't fun at all! I'm come to Planetside from a competitive background, and I was hooked with the possibility to a apply my skills and tactics in to a larger scale, and so far it beeb working pretty well. Increasing numbers at every battle reduces the difference between skilled players to normal players, putting both in balance. Higher tactics and skills should be rewarded, but they will got crushed in massive battles where the only think that's matter is numbers. I like the idea behind the lattice system, however, it's not ready to go live yet! To elimite the meaningless Zerg vs Zerg fights, and allow some malleability to non-zerg outfits and players, it needs a lot of work and implements to prevent the smaller end to be allways obliterate. Releasing it before adding new features and structures will broke the game for a huge part of his players. Some people are saying that if you don't like this changes you should just quit PS2 and go back to COD/BF3. Well, if this changes come live the way it is now, PS2 will look like COD more than ever! And I don't like COD. P.S.: About ghost capping- I don't like, my outfit don't support it, and it should be completely remove from the game.
No the whole reason these neutral areas SHOULD exist is for tactics, you should be able to hide forces there, we can't make this game too one dimensional because people WILL lose interest, or at least I will. Meta-game should facilitate and enhance Meta-scale strategy NOT make it irrelevant.
Field spar canyon outpost needs a huge catwalk built into the side of the mountain that reaches the bridge.
I'm laughing so hard right now, because that was my platoon that was attacking the skydock/defending Regent rock, and that was an awesome battle! I'll have to say that although you actually got into Regent rock, we couldn't even get into the skydock, which is more of a base problem, since it's impossible to attack scarred mesa with a proper force defending. I loved that battle, as well, and it was a pretty fun time. Another thing that I thought was impressive, was that the NC had a constant 17% - 13% pop, and the other two were around 40, and the NC still had second highest territory control, which I was amazed at. I think it was that the NC had a higher concentration of higher skilled players. What server do you play on, and what is your regular faction? Edit: I was SerendipityBL
Yeah we had some really good fights down there. I think the bulk of NC was fighting around Allatum and Hvar and protecting two fronts against the Vanu, I hear that it was an epic struggle. That makes me like Lattice even more, because I feel like if you're focused in one lane, you're going to hear some stories about other lanes on the map and how those battles are going. Yeah, Scarred Mesa is still a bit too defensible, but regardless, we still had some awesome fights. Loved it. I'm McDili on Mattherson TR, member of The Enclave. Nice to meet you!
Eh, this is for those who don't want to be stuck in a "Meat-grinder Facility" battle and, honestly, I'm fine with it. I mean, it makes those Outpost connected to the old Satellites actually worth something for a change, while not making Facilities the stopping points for a Lane. Two words... Radar Stations! We could have Radar Stations that give you more precise Enemy Detection, down to the Micro-Hex, that would be situated in the Neutral Zones, and be Secondary Objectives for Continental Conquest. Yeah... NO! Being able to move from cut off Territory is precisely why being able to move around Facilities is balanced and why Defense has a use at all; The potential Threat of a Faction moving out of cut off Territory to screw over another's plans requires one to be thorough in their Conquest. Now I don't know if having Bases be uncontested or not will have a positive effect in this regard, but I certainly wouldn't mind testing this. Faster Re-Secures would be nice, since they reward playing Smart over playing Fast. I think this might be less an issue of the Lattice and more of one for the Satellites themselves... Only a few of them feel like good, defendable Outpost designs, while others are impossible to Re-secure let alone defend due to them still being laid out as Satellites to a Facility instead of their own self-sufficient Base. They should feel like they have the same worth as any other link in the Lattice, but because some are still little more then the old Forward Spawn Points they're just not worth that effort! Indeed, the "Numbers Issue" might not be the fault of the Lattice itself, but of its low Density. More connected nodes equals a denser Lattice network, which in turn creates more routes... ...Then again, the Numbers Issue is still a problem in the current Hex system, so it might be a deeper problem with Meta Game Mechanics then a symptom of a poor Conquest Map layout... I've wrote down some of my own thoughts on that here... Something I found interesting about Xenotech Labs was the Teleporter to the other side of the Base located in the Spawn Room, which is very much needed considering Xenotech has a Spawn all the way over at one end of the Base and the Point is situated off from the middle... ...But yeah, better Outpost Layouts are always welcomed. WE SHALL CALL THEM RADAR STATIONS AND THEY WILL TELL YOU WHAT MICROHEX YOUR ENEMIES ARE HIDING IN!!!
