If the devs want to highlight RPG aspect why not make changes towards the most basic elements first?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by karlooo, Mar 29, 2023.

  1. karlooo

    I believe I understand what directions the devs are heading towards based on the update notes. I am very sure the majority would love it. But the thing I do not understand is why start off this way?

    The game is too... dynamic. Realistically it is a mess right now, near impossible to orientate in, and adding these strategical abilities will only add to the randomness, to the confusion. It will conclude with nothing because the state of the game.
    IMO it would be best to start off with changing the entire gunplay mechanics, the most basic element. To make it take longer to down a target, essentially slow it down to make it more interesting and build the gameplay you desire upon this introduction first.

    Like for example, lets say the majority of the weapons will be fired from the hip like old school good times, aiming just for specific guns or classes, and the whole HUD will be built into the soldiers visors or whatever they have, and essentially you wont have to aim because the visors will show you where the gun is aiming.... Perfect opportunity for simple immersion.

    Also HP... I had this suggestion before which I already posted but I'll share it again: https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps...-standard-hp-with-a-buff.259847/#post-3586668
    It was based on requests given to the devs when they had some special streams with leaders of outfits or players. It was a very long time ago. Fairly often players requested a higher damage weapon for their faction, for example somebody wanted a 200 damage LMG for TR and the devs just declined, that that will not happen but what I noticed is that they did not understand the true meaning of that individuals request because they took it specifically, and in that sense the request makes no sense. But the individual with the 200 dmg request for TR was indicating, not that they actually want a weapon like that but they are indirectly saying that there are people like them who don't really have the mentality, don't enjoy getting forced into a face to face duel where the one with the best accuracy wins. And instead would just like to fire a big gun that deals damage, that simple.
    And I understood that perfectly, because you can actually see these 2 types of mentalities in game. New players they either join red team or blue team. VS is an uninteresting faction based on look, you don't see any correlation, you do not see what they are fighting for. So, realistically TR and NC are the conscript armies, VS is the professional one and it is becoming most apparent right now that nobody wants to fight VS. Because of what it has turned into over time. When VS has the biased weapons arsenal, the higher amount of professional players, getting forced into their dimension were they hold complete superiority in, the players they will leave, they will retreat from battle because you don't have any option to counteract what they are superior in, it is as if you are in their game, no point in staying, you're just being outplayed no matter what you do. The players usually do what they enjoy at the TR/NC frontline, just shooting their guns and fully ignore VS.

    Oh and finally my suggestion was to remove shield from infantry and replace it with simple HP. The shield protects you from getting harassed, from getting your HP chipped off incrementally and forces the players into direct engagements to make a difference. If you removed the shield then HP can be incrementally chipped off and that would give opportunities to the players with different mentalities, unload their guns in a direction towards the enemy, allow them to provide suppressive fire, and for leaders that command the conscript army, this may grant them more opportunities to combat the more advanced forces, where their army would not win face to face. So plenty of room for different mentalities, no longer revolving around one, I mentioned before that some specific weapons can have scopes, so for those that want tactical equipment and stuff like that would be available.

    And yes I know this needs to be well thought out, that is the job of the devs not mine but for sure it would be easy.

    It is pretty remarkable that such a simple change or an update towards the gunplay mechanics, can change the game entirely. Pretty much Planetside 3 can be created based on such a simple change, right here.

    This is ultimately my point. So basically the game is in a state where nothing further can be improved unless something, some most basic element is redesigned. If you want to highlight the RPG aspect the game must slow down.
    Mechanically slowing down the game would change it entirely and therefore you may as well search for ways to integrate tanks into objective, mechanized combat, logistics, construction, might as well make a new game lol.

    And speaking of tanks one last thing came to my mind. Outfit assets is a perfect addition that could not be implemented worse than it was.
    I'll start like this. Why should everyone get access to tanks? Why is the objective enclosed, has a massive barrier around itself? Because of this issue, everybody has access to a tank with a snap of their fingers. First of all Infantry should have guns to actually combat tanks, ATGM, guided missile to combat tanks at the same range they are able to directly fire and deal real damage to them, simple as that. Tanks should not be something that you must have on the battlefield. And when the tanks get limited via outfit assets they can actually get a true strategical role on the battlefield and lattice bases would not need to be enclosed, if the rest of the vehicles get updated in an intelligent way.
    What if we had less of these small bases and instead had a big one, like a city, a battle in a city?

    Oh and speaking of base designs the devs got to remember that the beauty is in simplicity. Inside it can be as complex as it is, but from the outside what we see must be simple. I am mentioning this again cause I find it very confusing that the devs attempted to replicate a similar design to Sanctuary and implement it into the game.
    I thought to myself when I first saw Sanctuary, that the devs are just testing the game's limits, graphics. Sanctuary was a failure from the start, it was hideous, like the design and art was nice but to the eye it was hideous, all the lines on my screen, all the items, it hurts my eyes, my FPS drops by 50 whenever I am in the area.....I cannot stand sitting in the Sanctuary for a second, when there is a wait queue I instantly jump to VR training room. If there was a mission to force me to run around sanctuary I was always infuriated. I hated being forced into something so hideous. Like once again it was for sure a nice design but to the eye, from our perspective on our lower end computers it was hideous.

    This is just some generalized post, a general idea. That is all.
  2. karlooo

    *Construction can also take part here, outfit asset idea, in a very strategical way. (building command center for squad leaders, fortifications, artillery - perfect combo for motorized infantry. Please, no more dart guns. There was this game which no longer exists but its solution to artillery use was much simpler, with howitzer guns it showed you where your rounds impact on the map, so you could correct fire... very simple solution. Dart is a terrible mechanic, you should not be running away from your position into touching distance of the enemy to command the fire, it is ridiculous)
  3. Mithril Community Manager

    Let's restart with the replies, this time without the negativity and personal attacks. Thanks everyone!
    • Up x 1
  4. karlooo

    If I wanted to, I would make a separate post about it. I was just asking cause essentially they are attempting the exact same thing I am attempting here. How come I don't see any harsh criticism from demigaannnn! Why is he silent here!
    They are doing something that they are unsure off. Basically they are doing something they essentially do not understand, based on a mystery intention that they never share.

    Btw I just noticed that the post I shared above: https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps...-standard-hp-with-a-buff.259847/#post-3586668
    I noticed that you replied there as well..... Like you know exactly what I am talking about here but choose to get caught up in something trivial. Even in that post you do the exact same thing, you got caught up in ridiculous nonsense, like with that armor suggestion.

    For example here, you complained about my idea to restrict heavy machines to outfits assets. I did expand on that to further explain how it may be designed, to try and understand what is my intention.... And actually it is a very good concept, after re-reading it right now. It is a very good concept to counteract spam tactics, zerg outfits, this would give more value to assets and therefore may receive more advanced controls, features, design (like hitbox), allow players to specialize in certain roles (just like I specialized in construction ever since I started playing, that's my role, I still do it till now because of the complexity, the options), specialized outfits, meaning role playing would be more apparent and ultimately I put in the suggestion to remove barriers around bases and make them fully open, and therefore we may as well have these massive bases, almost like cities. Instead of small, enclosed, close together bases as we have now, we can have cities with big outskirts and open fields.

    But no you'd rather ignore such an interesting suggestion .... You would rather argue about the voice of someone, something that could not be more stupid. It's as if that's your entire job here at the forums.
    I didn't see you expand on anything, in second comment you said, there are a million and one ways to improve the game by diversifying and adding to the game rather than dumbing it down. So where is one?
    All you do on these forums is create these malicious critical comments.


    Also I added in a pretty good suggestion to construction artillery. It is so simple and has such complex meaning behind it. You can fire the howitzer, guess where the targets are from far away, but essentially a team is required for this tool to be effective. Somebody at the frontline needs to give you the targets, and you will likely need more than one howitzer at the base to reliably damage or destroy the target (IMO there should be recoil after each fire, when the howitzer is entered just like any turret HUD should include a big map at last across half the screen that'll indicate where the shots hit, the horizontal bar for the orientation which may come in handy for targeting, and vertical line should give some basic info of the range the rounds reach, based on the elevation) .... So you may need multiple players operating multiple howitzers at the base.
    And I hinted in how this may be perfect for motorized infantry (suggestion relating to zerg outfits), as a way of destroying fortified targets or an armored push by the enemy, cause based on my idea they will have very limited access or no access to mobile tanks for breakthrough.. The idea on the inside is so complex, yet on the outside it is simple and would encourage the ultimate roleplaying experience. But yeah it would require a revamp of every single vehicle and essentially the howitzer idea would only work well with urban maps that have large open fields.... So, yeah. This would be a hard one for sure.

    I do construction all the time. I have gotten to such a state were I build multiple FOBs or defensive positions by switching between accounts. I am that invested in the role, yet I do not understand the intention of the changes that is being planned.

    For example that module announcement. Basically they are trying to make the player interact with the base but the idea is lazy, it is forceful, all that it is. Does not encourage natural interactions.
    Generally speaking, if somebody told me to grab a truck, resupply it at a base that is 2km away and bring us ammunition here, I would have no problem with that. I would have no problem doing the trip twice because I feel involved, I am bringing something that my teammates need. They need ammunition to continue the fight. Great interaction.

    But this having to manually bring power ups to structures every once in a while feels like, bring me some Lays Chips you dumb *** lol. It feels this way because I am being forced to upkeep a base even more than we are now, by powering up structures and I am still unsure whether they will even be used by my team. I am unsure if it's even going to be used.... It doesn't fit in the game.

    The module concept will be so repulsive that people will stop doing it over time and will search for ways to bypass it, it is such a terrible design. And actually this has proven to be true. The devs are working on something that has already proven itself to be a complete failure.... Shield module. People do not overcharge anymore because what does it do? Nothing, walls become immune for a certain time but the enemy is still shooting at you, nothing changed, it's silly really. In fact I stopped using the shield modules entirely. I am not even joking. I only use repair modules, 1 AI module, Skyshield, that's it. Minimal power consumption, I supply the base to sufficient amounts and then leave it be. Because why should I be there? Once in a while somebody comes in to grab a free vehicle, but who are they, they just come buy occasionally to grab **** and leave, screws them really. Is this why I should be actively maintaining the base? (the idea of allowing access to free vehicles is silly as well, it just doesn't go)
    So, that's what I do nowadays, swap between accounts to set up multiple positions, together it may have strategical value if it gets used.

    And speaking of how to form proper interaction, the Howitzer idea. There could be natural interaction involved there. Lets say the Howitzers use ammo, so you can't rly shoot non stop and once it fires it provides a beating. The ammo comes from a specific module that holds particles for creating ammunition or however planetside 2 works. So, lets say to be distinctive, the module will bit a bit larger, and box shaped. Each shot from howitzer depletes points from these modules that are in range and obviously they need to be resupplied using a 2nd type of resource, that the player will extract from those large ammo towers lattice bases have. So the ANT will be able to store 2 resources, particles for ammo, and the Cortium particles for powering up or creating armor and designing the buildings. And the ammo concept can be evolved and possibly used somewhere else. So, if the devs want interaction, this is much better. Basically you are supplying the weapons you are using, because each time you fire it you need to replenish ammo, so you are taking care of something that's being used. Unlike interacting with something that you don't know whether it's going to be used or not and on top of it with useless powerups.

    Lattice-Based Construction Areas is another silly design..... From my experience the lattice based construction areas are the worst places to build at. Because all they do is prolong the fight, they have no strategical value in that area, they only cause accumulation of forces cause of how the landscape is designed (and because it lacks guns and in turn is a damage soaker). It's hard to clean up once it accumulates and everybody knows what happens after, the massive push continues. So, basically the devs here are doubling down on areas which are the worst to build on. They are begging players to build in the worst areas for some reason lol.
    So, for example whenever my team builds on Low Land Trading Post, I usually try and correct the mistake by providing crossfire. The enemy at Quartz ridge holds the high ground, Lowland Trading post usually gets surrounded and our teammates are normally unable to outflank them because the enemy has a complete overview of the battlefield and sets up Sunderer positions near Lowland trading Post, under cover.
    So I design a very cheap base on a mountain west of Lowland, the higher altitude allows me to hold control over a large span of land up until the road... How? I add a crap load of guns lol. I have been complaining since 2015, to drew or whoever, that construction lacks and needs guns. When teammates spawn at your base they do not have weapons to combat the enemy heavy machinery...


    So, basically that is another reason why I cycle through accounts, to exceed structure limit and add weapons where it is necessary. And as long as this feature stays I am ok with whatever useless and forceful items the devs produce but this feature that I use should not be hampered. Thanks to this feature I am able to create true strongholds, what construction should have been, ones that actually destroy the enemy, rather than cause a ridiculous accumulation of forces and encourage a double team. In this case the enemy cannot deploy Sunderers or hide vehicles behind cover due to the crossfire that this base provides.

    Lattice based construction areas should realistically be removed. Flat ground should be what encourages players to build, not this ridiculous idea of self replenishing Silos. The players should have free roam of where they want to build. Just for the sake of balance and logic - you should build on flat ground to make it more predictable where artillery positions or strongholds may be without having to show the position on map, force people to use their instincts. (no more bases in ridiculous areas like mountain tops)

    That is why I shared my idea of forming an urban map, with large outskirts and open fields, the outfit assets. Because there would be plenty of flat ground, you would be able to set up FOBs around the outskirts of the city, possibly there may be some flat ground for building inside the city and also because of all the other issues of how you are unsure whether anybody would use the base..... Building directly at the objective is something that'd definitely be used...
    Basically as I always say, for construction to be integrated into or to take part in the objective in a natural way the game must be somewhat redesigned. ....

    When I think about it maybe I will make a separate topic about that annoucement. If I feel like it.
  5. karlooo

    What are we supposed to do, just leave it be? Cause I continued the conversation just now.
  6. Mithril Community Manager

    So long as the personal attacks and rude remarks towards one another stops. Thanks
  7. karlooo

    RIP the outfit asset concept lol. Too bad it got deleted, I found it pretty cool.
  8. Demigan

    Its because they aren’t attempting what you are. They aren’t really simplifying the construction system. Yes the regen silo as a basic on construction points is simpler, but changing modules to be integrated into individual building pieces rather than dumping one and in a large area everything benefits from it is not simpler.

    Also as I explained why I’m not complaining about it is because I literally proposed similar idea’s before. These changes should help turn bases more into area’s to fight in than murder holes, which I’ve been asking for for years now.

    I don’t usually recall something from almost half a year ago, but its nice to see I’m consistent despite that. Good to know right? That means I didn’t just nitpick something or get caught in something trivial since I responded the same twice to your remove shield idea.
    Also I don’t “get caught in something trivial”. Someone proposed an alternative to you and asked me to respond to it, which I did. Just like I responded to your question about construction here.

    Gating stuff to outfits is not good game design period. The entire armory system should go away.
    Additionally you would promote vehicle zerging, “ha ha we have tanks and you don’t, screw your gameplay”. And if two outfits were to fight and one wins, then the winning one has the tanks and the losing one gets farmed. That doesn’t sound like a good concept to me.

    The massive city idea is one of those “cool but unworkable” idea’s. Early in PS2 they tried to make a cityscape base and failed due to performance issues. Having open bases and bases closer together is something I want, but your idea to achieve it would supercharge outfits to steamroll and farm the opposition. We actually had more open bases with even more OP vehicles that came in limited supply due to resources early on and the result was exactly that, farmfests and vehicle zergs.
    Also the reason I point out the voice of someone is because you brought it up. Its as unrealistic as you claiming you somehow know the BR level of random allies walking by, and in this case you hear a voice and say you know what type of player he is and extrapolate that as some support for your wild theory.

    If you look on these forums you can find dozens of idea’s of mine that diversify the game. Hell many even managed to get into the game, although not in the way I proposed. The SMG with class-specific grenades? I proposed to add class-specific UB grenades to underperforming weapons to boost them. Routers? I proposed a Medic deployed AMS system which was almost implemented as the Forwards Station and then quickly turned into the Router since they threw HIVES out and needed a hook into construction. Faction specific turrets for Lightnings, non-lethal mines, a burst jumppack for LA’s, laser-guided infantry rocketlaunchers and more are also part of what I proposed and made it in the game in some form. And now they add something close to the construction changes I proposed.
    Then there’s the idea’s that haven’t made it into the game (yet?). Map+radar improvements, G2A variations and additions, more focus on unique playstyles for aircraft while giving each a unique A2A and A2G attack method, more versatility for shotguns, changing vehicle nanite cost based on loadout, MAX alterations and variations, a good way to add BFR’s by giving them a specific role rather than making them supertanks etc. But for some reason you missed all that.

    And that’s mu Karlooo limit for today.
  9. karlooo

    Oh I see, so the idea is to simplify the design from perspective of the people who do not specialize in this a role. All the modules on the ground caused confusion and a messy situation for those who breached inside the base. This update will ultimately keep it clean, but not like my bases were not clean to begin with lol. I have this blueprint that I designed some time ago, final version has proven itself to be effective and I use it all the time. I literally create the base at such a speed as if it were factory produced. And I barely use any modules right now, just 2-3 repair modules, 1 AI, 1 Skyshield and that is all.


    So you must place it at that order. I'll just explain the basics, not the design in detail of why it is placed the way it is.
    The anti-infantry turret is protected by the tower from the front, and the turret protects the only entrance from enemy infantry and the vehicle terminal from being hacked. Multipurpose base, needs to be built on flat ground.
    I purposefully minimize power Consumption. You could add more to it for example turret at right side of pillbox.
    I could not simplify the design more than it is now, so I don't know what will be changed if the devs added those new structures.

    What type of modules the devs plan on adding? I personally only use repair modules right now, fully ignore shield module and if I would be forced to replenish them or active them, I will most likely just ignore it and leave the base as something disposable, that I will not look back at when it's complete (explanation in previous comment). That's how it would end with me and I would just cycle through accounts to do what the role is supposed to with no forceful interactions, to bypass this because it's such a bad design.
    You know this is another thing I do not understand. These replenishing Silos. I do not understand why the devs are gradually attempting to put this idea place. First by losing access to lock your silo, unable to keep everything organized because of randoms, then increasing the Cortium cost of the Silo hoping that players will equip this structure as the first one.... Since I have started construction I noticed from the start that the Silo must not be placed first. For maximum spatial efficiency, organization, you must create the design, the basic shape and then then place the Silo. For example in that blueprint, I first place the tower and wall, then the Silo in between. And the more organized the base is, the simpler it looks and to the eye it's very nice, almost like an advertisement to the game. For example the screenshot in previous comment, with the multiple guns, a low profile, allowing the tanks to use the walls as hull down positions and so on. The simple design looks cool, but no the devs are encouraging spam, leave an open Silo to everyone and place whatever you want, create a mess.
    These new additions, module and replenishing Silo, it seems as if they ultimately want to replace logistics, the current way of interacting with your base and force interaction the other way for unknown reasons, with modules and powerups.

    Oh and about the module Skyshield, the only reason why I place the Skyshield is to partially protect against the ridiculously unbalanced anti-construction artillery guns. Other than that I hate the Skyshield because it fully gives away your position with that excessively glowing light, I don't like how it looks but because of how easy it is to decimate your position with the artillery assets I am forced to add it, to at least deter the opposition from using this lazy counter.
    If an enemy assaults the base with the anti construction assets, then there's no point in defending against it. They are so badly designed that might as well leave and build a new base. The whole mechanic is terrible, you cannot find the infiltrator that is enabling the super accurate strikes, which they have infinite amount of. You need to search for that stupid tiny dart from glaive IPC, it takes a long time but even if you get it the enemy will cycle and that doesn't take long as they likely have some air/veh terminal. And combatting it is not easy either because by the time you destroy that stupid position, which is unpredictable because it can be on an incline, on a mountain top because of how the assets are designed, so likely you cannot even get there with a ground vehicle, need an aircraft, by the time you destroy the modules, the gun likely destroyed a large portion of your base. If you have artillery there, that's the first thing enemy will target. And they can continue, the structures are cheap they can rebuild it in one minute..... It is a terrible and toxic experience.

    The idea I had here with Howitzers could be much better in all accounts.

    To counteract the issue of how the artillery pieces can be built anywhere, I came up with a decent solution some time ago where the artillery asset would be composed of 3 items that'd form a triangle shape. With my howitzer suggestion it could be composed of the 2 Howitzers, and the box shaped module that provides ammunition to form a triangle shape and therefore you'll need much better land, a flat surface to set up this assets, cause technically all of them will need to be above ground. That would solve one annoyance. The module is to limit the amount of time the gun can fire so essentially if a construction base gets attacked you could wait it out possible, lets say the bunker would be immune. The Howitzer needs to be resupplied using a second type of resource, particle that I mentioned above. Great interaction.
    Another, my design would not be as accurate as the dart mechanic. But I actually made a silly mistake in the suggestion of adding a vertical bar. I just realized that howitzers likely function the opposite way, lower angle for further targets, and higher angle for closer targets. ... Yeah, this would be a hard one for sure, because my idea here is to require some skill, some practice to be able to operate this weapon efficiently. And this could possibly work, like instead of the vertical bar lets say it'd share the elevation angle in bottom left of HUD, and based on your experience, like lets say you remember the approx. range of certain angles, but altitude is another variable.... Would be hard for sure but you could correct fire yourself so I believe it'd be ok.... The real question is what purpose would it hold, how lethal would it be, friendly fire, would it deal bonus damage against vehicles including some area damage and less damage vs infantry, how would it impact lattice base fights, but if it where mainly designed as an anti construction anti tank asset I believe it'd be better in every aspect than the dart guns.

    Oh I think I understand what you mean with the flaw. So you say that if an outfit maintains their tanks, over time (because they are still receiving tanks to the warehouse until it reaches storage limit due to how outfit assets are designed right now), they'd have more and more on the battlefield and they would be steamrolling their opponents if they achieve this type of success. Yep, this would be a hard one to fix cause no matter how much time, cost, the limit is for the tank assets the same issue will stay.

    But maybe at the same time, you know, I suggested before to finally give infantry reliable weapons to combat armor, more damage, more velocity, possibly something more advanced that has some sort of cost, like atgm, guided missile, the cost can be like just one round for guided missile (a disposable launcher), atgm cost being you're immobile, but make them deal damage finally, even the sunder could have an anti tank weapon similar to phoenix, this part of how vehicles may be remade is ultra complex, don't want to talk about it....
    What if there where defensive weapons to combat offensive weapons, such as the pheonix sunderer idea being just one type, (deployed state) to counter such a steamroll, a Blitzkrieg? (defensive weapons should for sure be easier to use than offensive, so to counter organized outfits, defensive weapons should be simple to use for ones that have little leadership)

    What if tank engine sound was improved so you'd hear it from far away. What if the gun's stabilizer was a little less effective on the move and would require tank to stand still to hit accurate shots?

    What purpose would the tanks really have? Would they require 2 people to operate (for standard designs) a driver and gunner, driver would act as commander? What if the tanks would have a more complex hitbox? So, instead of just hitting it and dealing damage based on your position, instead your aim would be rewarded and you can also target/destroy certain hitboxes as components, like tracks to immobilize the tank, disable the gun, maybe even the sights the tank has can be destroyed, machine gun.... So the tank is tough but at the same time, can be easily disabled and must be used with care, should not overextend or else the Sunderer then would have trouble repairing the damaged components as it is a large vehicle. This one would be interesting for sure....The idea I have here with the hitbox is, as an example I'll start off with the hull itself, the rear would be weakest, the sides of the tank would be weak as well (part of it would be marked as rear), front would be tough. So based on where you hit you'll deal bonus or less damage to HP. And this hitbox idea would be great cause, you would require proper positioning to make it harder for the enemy to hit the sides/rear and at the same time rewards aim because it'll always be exposed, even in direct confrontation, so on the other end aim would be rewarded.
    Oh and now about the steamrolling part, so if the tank had components with separate hitboxes, so lets say the optics, top machine could be damaged by small arms, tracks could be destroyed with AT weapons, gun could be disabled with a powerful anti tank weapon.... That would make it harder for the enemy to actually steamroll and could be evolved into something interesting. (the components should be connected to the tanks total HP, so damaging the component would transfer damage to the tank HP, unchanged, decreased based on what'd make sense, but at the same time having its own health pool)

    What I am trying to say here is that it could be managed in many ways all added up, added together. But this is, too much lol.

    I have heard that as well, but I can't imagine it.... You now, you have the landscape with all these details, changes in its mesh all over the map and no problem here, but how come large assets would cause such performance issues, like even primitive large assets with little details? It's so confusing how the game engine works. Like in an extremes example, even if you had no details in the environment, it's just flat in that area, you covered it with a plane that has the concert texture, and the rest would be structures, large assets with very simple necessary details, interiors and stuff, like 10x less detail than the AMP station structures.... The game's performance would suffer?

    There's a laser guided missile launcher for infantry, HA?
    What's BFR? The MAX suggestion.
  10. AllRoundGoodGuy

    I'm not reading all of this.
    I'm happy for you that it happened.
    Or sorry it did.
  11. karlooo

    You don't need to. Almost half of the conversation got deleted so it will likely be confusing.
  12. Demigan

    Not really. Its to make it FUN to fight there. Right now the owner of the PMB is encouraged to make it a bad experience to attack, causing players to either not attack at all or to use cheese tactics. By introducing these buildings you create a playspace rather than a murder hole.

    This update will ultimately keep it clean, but not like my bases were not clean to begin with lol. I have this blueprint that I designed some time ago, final version has proven itself to be effective and I use it all the time. I literally create the base at such a speed as if it were factory produced. And I barely use any modules right now, just 2-3 repair modules, 1 AI, 1 Skyshield and that is all.


    They are designed so that players can more easily build a base on the point area’s without the need of collection first. It helps with base building, helps players get in touch with base building and learn what they can or cannot do. Having elitism because someone else is either new or doesn’t do it like you want them to (possibly for very good reasons you just don’t understand) is not constructive. Its good to give players a chance to interact with the construction system without needing to waste time collecting first.

    While giving infantry capable AV weapons its not a good reason to limit tanks to outfits. It remains a superior asset to use compared to infantry (otherwise there is no point). And why should Outfits specifically get this while non-outfit players are excluded?
    If you were going to do something like that, then all players regardless of outfit/platoon/squad/random status should be able to build up the resources necessary to make a tank for themselves. And even that is bad for gameplay as all you are doing is limiting the amount of time a player can spend using tank gameplay.
  13. karlooo

    Did I miss something? Are the devs planning something other than what they announced there? They never share their plans so I don't know what is their ultimate goal but based on that announcement, nothing would change. By looking at it I can predict the role getting more annoying for both the designer and attackers. They are not fixing the artillery, they are not removing the Orbital Strike, they are not finding ways to get rid of annoying structures such as Skyshield and Pain Spire, in a way which would allow the base to normally operate, which would be very easy, they are not adding more guns, ground based turrets and so on... I've mained the role, I know what it needs and I understood it years ago.

    And could you explain an example, on how the owner of PMB is encouraged to make it a bad experience to attack. Tell me what specifically you mean? Is it like the spamming of structures to add HP on top of HP, adding up to million and creating an annoying damage soaker? Or what do you have in mind?

    The devs will only be forcing the designer to interact with their base in the most annoying way possible. If they want interaction, I gave a pretty good suggestion above about the artillery pieces.
    And essentially the base is missing weapons. This is one example of what encourages the owner of PMB to make it a bad experience to attack. If they have no weapons to defend their position what does that mean. That means some will hide their base to construct OS and Flail, which is the most toxic and annoying weapon in the game... Also if they don't have weapons, that'll force the player to just spam structures, creating a damage soaker. Is that fun to attack, shooting a wall 70 times?

    No it doesn't. A 5 minute construction tutorial would do that. That's what I did, to figure our the controls. Then it's up to you to figure out how it should be used. And testing designs. I did that far from the frontlines, where it is very calm and I am not in danger. Those building areas are constantly in danger, you are going to learn jack in that area. You will only learn to communicate with people there to move their **** out of the way, that they are ruining the design :D

    Elitism, yeah sure I want my faction to be elite. I want my faction to win, I share my plans and documents with my outfits in terms of my experience with this role, I share my knowledge with my teammates. I am doing this to support my team lol. I like supporting, helping others.

    Sure screw the outfit asset idea, if infantry get proper weapons. But can the nanite economy change? For example, you know the devs want roleplaying, well what if the tech tree concept I shared before would apply to our characters instead of outfits. For the person to form the role(s) they want to specialize in, like in World of Warcaft you have those 3 tech trees, well over here as an example lets say the tanks and vehicles are very expensive, to pull a Lightening it would cost 750 Nanites (more costly in exchange for you know what), your entire pool. You can increase your nanite pool using the tech tree, for those who want to operate heavy machinery. Using the tree you add an extra 200 nanites, giving you max of 950 and therefore you get access to more heavier vehicles such as the MBT, you basically unlock new vehicles, get access to it... Very cool, you stand out, basically you are the person who specializes in this role.
    Other examples of tech tree abilities could be increasing the time you can keep your vehicle unmanned. For example if you pull an MBT you can park somewhere, it will stay up for 30 minutes instead of 5, so you don't have to drive around like a dumb *** when it is not needed. Or another idea, there could be a tech tree ability that'll allow your character to pull multiple vehicles, the last one you entered will be marked as yours, the rest anyone can take just like it works now but it does not despawn and you can pull 5 in total, last one over would despawn as normal. This idea can be used in correlation with construction terminals, if they stay in the game, the owner can pull their own vehicles and park it in the base for somebody to just pick it up, instead of a random player pulling a vehicle. It would look cool to have like tanks or trucks neatly parked in a PMB.
    For other roles, ASP could be integrated here, as part of the tech tree concept, and ultimately the ASP itself could go away.

    But this would be a headache for the fing outfit leaders that keep this game alive... Cause how are they going to put this together?

    This could be a great idea to fix or form the character you want, we have the leveling up system, would be great here, would give the players reasons to want to level up ... What do you think of this concept?

    (nanite pool idea was off the top of my head, it needs to be well thought out cause faction uniqness also needs to be visible, many things need to be added into account. I haven't made the topic yet, but for TR what can be done to display the mightily military production, and these types of questions..)
  14. Demigan

    • Up x 1
  15. karlooo

    Can you just link it to me? Their announcements or social media page where they share details?

    Anyways what do you say about that tech tree concept I mentioned at the end? Now when I think about it, that actually be really cool, like in general for everybody. Not the specific ideas but the concept itself to form and fix your character in an incredible and comprehensible way, instead of the silly ASP idea itself (having to gain level 100 through ultra grinding and then having to start over) or some other bad mechanism, like the Implants (The extreme prices for the implants that allow you to actually shape your character, some requiring more than a month of hard grinding to get a single one)
    I have an idea on how the game can make better revenue but later when I feel like it.
  16. Demigan

    Sure! Read this article again, but this time with your bias filter off:


    I don’t know about the devs wanting role-playing. But I don’t think the tech tree is good. You are purposefully locking content behind an arbitrary line, and players may end up soft-locking themselves out of content. Your idea would also cause balance problems again. Lets say one side wins the vehicle battle, how is the losing side ever going to mount a proper defense now? They pay for a big expensive tank, they’ll just be outnumbered against the opposing tanks. You also say you want to give the tanks power for their cost, so they would utterly dominate infantry (despite you also mentioning infantry should have good AV capabilities, the tanks would need enough firepower to absolutely murder everything in your scenario).

    Also imagine someone who just wants to play tanks, he’s now forced to play as infantry most of the time. You want players to be able to play the way they want, not force them into something else. PS2 can inherently not be balanced by volume since you don’t know if there’s 0 tanks or 15 tanks going to show up at a base. That means that all units, regardless of them being infantry, tanks or aircraft need to be more or less balanced against one another. Which is why I would advocate the existance of free tank vehicles or extremely cheap vehicles (say 100% completely vanilla vehicles without anything on), rather than making stuff expensive and gating it so not everyone can access it.

    Just imagine being a new player and someone drives up to you in an MBT, and you can’t even pull it. Then when you pull a Lightning because it looks like the best thing you get wiped, giving you no chance to actually train and learn the vehicle game since you run out of nanites immediately. Especially for a more casual player who might jump on for half an hour or so they would be limited to 2 Lightnings in a single playthrough, whopping 4 Lightnings in an hour. Not good. Also shows you how fast this can generate vehicle zergs: if it takes 15 minutes or more for someone to come back with a tank then the players who still have tanks remain unchallenged for a long time.
  17. karlooo

    Yeah I believe that as well, but the tanks would need to be redesigned into a more arcade style and possibly maps as well. Including the 3D design as well to set an arcade theme and not be deceiving.
    The things I am sharing is going a different route, more of a battlefield simulator route.

    Ok, I will check it out again but still I may not understand.

    If the devs don't want role playing then then what was that effort they put into those campaigns and like Sanctuary stuff.

    So, anyways the tank itself is not the issue, even if it was more powerful but I'll get to this later. Literally the same scenario that you described happens in this game right now. It's primarily an issue of both the map design and lack of weaponry for infantry but much more as well.
    That's why Hossin is one of my favorite maps because the use of tanks is most ideal for such a landscape. Such an environment requires tanks to clear certain positions but there are still many more issues.

    I want to limit tanks not for sheer power, but more so for adding complexity to the asset. The tanks are so dull right now (because they can be spammed): animations, sounds, hitboxes, controls... you control the gun as if you are browsing the internet, not like a machine, and this dullness makes it so the one who has more numbers wins no matter what.

    Here is a specific scenario that happened recently, it was on Hossin. Based on territory pop I saw that an NC convoy was approaching, I set up a Lightening onto some position to cover the road and there were too many so I just opened fire to deal damage. It was important to hold them off and not give them the comfort to set up spawns at that base, so then I used a nearby PMB to spam free tanks just to deal damage and there's nothing else I could have done against that convoy because they have numbers.
    And this was literally the scenario you described above, this mess is already in the game.

    But if the tank for example contained hitboxes for certain components like I mentioned above, oh btw was the point of the bastion, I thought the devs wanted to test this mechanic there... So anyways if the tanks had hitboxes, in that scenario, the first target was Vanguard who had his side displayed to me. I could have taken out some component with an accurate shot, I could have disabled the first target and possibly backed out to change position or just stay there.
    Also I have not said this here but I made a post about it and forgot. I suggested to remove ability to change your perspective to third person when inside a tank, make it first person only and turret controls, traverse based on analog control rather than mouse, to make it feel more like controlling a machine.
    If the tank I engaged didn't have access to third person overview, they would not know where they got hit from (map spotting and displaying specific unit after each shot is silly but people don't usually look at the map right off the bat) and I could have dealt more damage. Here they knew where I was, instantly engaged me back, more vehicles drove up because they knew that I could not do anything to them, they have the numbers and would repair damage in 5 seconds without impeding the operation.

    So, that's basically what I have in mind. Add complexity to the asset so you can engage it in more ways other than having more numbers.

    Just to keep it short....
    And I already mentioned at that start that the map designs are terrible, Hossin was the only one that was going for certain improvements.

    The Lightening is the MBT. I said MBT because I didn't want to list out the tanks. Lightening is the best thing you can pull, in term of its effectives, practicality, use, price.
    Purposefully locking content behind an arbitrary line... Normally people stick to certain roles, they don't play everything. Even in this game. But anyways the roles that I decided to specialize in were Heavy Assault, Engineer, tank, Construction. The rest I do not enjoy, and this applies to the majority. People choose what they enjoy and stick to it.

    I know it's complex and it's not exactly my job to, I don't have the tools to come up with a perfect solution. Just an idea.
  18. OSruinedPS1

    construction = fortified infantry position
    artillery = anti construction

    not construction = happy fun place for someone attacking construction