Like Needles In My Eyes (1)

As I said earlier in this thread, I'd leave them "capture-able" but in the sense of the satellites in large bases on Amerish. Quick, no timer. But all that the ownership would be tied to is some infantry terminals, ammo tower, a terminal for switching vehicle loadouts (because let's be honest vehicles need this in-game as it is) but no spawning capabilities.

Kind of let's the small outposts serve as natural resupplying locations. If you take into account the changes SOE wants to make to the resource system, this would make these outposts the destinations for a good chunk of the ANT drivers. You could choose to tactically avoid them or you use them to supply a large force.

I like it. If you somehow tie that in with the resource revamp, I think you should make a thread with this idea.

There's a couple of things that needs to get done before this can ever happen.

1. Performance updates - There will be HUGE fights with less bases around. We need all of the MAJOR performance updates to go through.

2. Resource Revamp - We need the resource revamp to make smaller skirmishes for players who do NOT have good computers to run the larger battles and gives a whole new metagame for support / sabotage roles.

3. Continent Conquest - This is necessary to feel accomplishment after taking bases by capturing continents to feel like this is a war. When we take an enemies base, we want it to be OUR base, instead of being a base that will be taken back in an hour.

After these things are put into the game, hopefully we will get a continent that has fewer facilities on the continent which will produce more open field fights.

I just don't see the benefits of that kind of Outposts from the gameplay point of view. I mean the beauty of PS1 was that when your empire started to move towards the next enemy base you had to bring the support along with you. The longer distances opened up several different ways to approach the base and you could pick any one of them. It was all up to you to decide.

Now, I can't understand why would anyone want small capturable outposts every 500 meters dictate how one should approach the next base? No matter how quickly you could capture them it would still drive the empires into this narrow unimaginative gameplay. Besides, all those ownership benefits you listed could be provided from Sunderers as well, so why would one want unnecessary stationary objectives in between the bases when we could have fully dynamic battlefield in there instead?

I think you got the impression these were required captures, that's not what I'm driving at; they would be capture-able if you wanted use of them. If you take into account some of the ideas SOE is bandying about on their roadmap, one of them is limited resource pools for nanites (aka limited ammo restocks, respawns, vehicles spawn etc.) and the use of certain vehicles to resupply these "pools" by transporting resources from some sort of nanite fountain (wherever this may be.)

If this system is adopted, it would be natural to assume that sunderers would have their own limited resource pools, required them to be restocked from time to time. That's where these optionally capturable outposts come in, they, depending on what's better for gameplay, could either function as larger resource pools, so they require more to fill but can last longer than say, a mobile sunderer, before depleting dry; or, themselves be "nanite fountains" that the supply vehicles can draw from. In the first iteration the outpost serve as more or less large stationary sources of resources and still require sunderers for any infantry spawns. In the second they serve as "supply depots" that a small force could easily choose to ignore because hey, their sunderers have plenty of resources for their smaller force or the large force might have to seriously consider whether to take or not to shorten their heavily needed supply line.

Lastly remember, these are just ideas we're bandying about here, nothing is perfect in it's first conception and it's good to discuss the pros and cons of each idea. Not only does it help us refine them, it keeps bumping this thread up.

P.S. Remember in the context of this thread's OP, the lattice system is either gone or severely limited, these small outposts have no part of it.

I really hope the devs are listening. We have the huge battles now...it just lacks meaning. You never win.

I actually understood this part from your original comment. I just didn't put too much weight on it, because I figured it wouldn't reflect the reality. The thing is that if you start to move towards the next enemy base and there is a capturable outpost "roughly" on the way then why wouldn't you capture it? I mean I don't see any reason why anyone would simply skip it and let the enemy have it. After all, it does provide benefits to your empire.

Think about a battle with an enemy of equal size. Ofcourse you would use the outpost for your advantage, which means you would still be having the battles around these "pre-determined" locations every 500 meters just like we've been doing so far. Therefore I find it important to get rid of the outposts for good.

They can be 'capturable' but it needs to be quick (like the satellites at the main facilities on Amerish) - as has already been stated.
They also can't have any spawn rooms, because that WILL bog down the momentum of any push. (The current problem - spawn camping).

Hm, I understand what you're saying, and it's probably true. In a equal-sized battle, 9 times out of 10 the opposing forces will probably fight along this line. I don't find this a problem however, as even in, if you'll pardon me, real wars, natural battle lines are often drawn based on supply routes and such, you are supplying an army you know.

The main complaint I see about lattice usually doesn't appear to stem from the route itself, but the fact that there is:

A. Zero allowance for deviance, and;
B. A stop-and-go every 500 or so meters system.

Whereas even by having these capturable outposts, a compentent PL can send in 1 squad to cap while the rest of the force moves on steadily without having to wait 4-5 minutes like now. And also don't forget, even if 9/10 the forces will follow these outposts, what happens in that 1/10? They have that choice. The unlead masses might just go down that lane, but the truly organized will think about alternate routes. That's where the real gameplay comes into play.

But I do understand where you're coming from, the outposts would have to balanced just right to be worth capping, but not necessary.

No what the game needs is the PS1 cloaking AMS, PS1 mines, PS1 spitfires, and PS1 motion detectors.

If you do what this OP suggests it would make camping worse. Due to the absence of the PS1 cloaking AMS you need MORE fixed spawn points, not less. If you limit the spawn options even further that makes camping even worse. Geez you people have no clue.

And without the PS1 cloaking AMS, PS1 mines, PS1 spitfires, and PS1 motion detectors there is nothing to slow the zerg down and they will quickly go from base to base and like you said it's an automatic spawn camp when they get there. All these little outposts that take 5 minutes to cap? They're the only thing slowing the Zerg down.

It's not so "genius".

I like the idea, they had to do it.
EDIT: This is why i keep playing with Battlefield 1942. It has huge maps with only few bases on it. While BF3 is full of capture points. Sadly, the new games are mostly about fast paced actions. Even if it has 64 players or 500. The game is about shoting in a little base. Its almost feels like CoD.

Think it this way, would you design a gameplay which pleases 10% of the playerbase? Surely that 10% might have the greatest time in flanking the enemy and doing stuff where as the 90% are still battling over these meaningless outposts every 500 meters. Why not remove the outposts and let the 90% join in the fun? No more fixed stationary objectives other than the major bases and some random towers. Let the 90% form the battles along the way in the open fields. Do not "force" them into this narrow repetitive route. It worked pretty well in PS1. I can't see why it wouldn't work in PS2 too.

I suppose that concludes my point. Feel free to disagree with it.

And who knows... maybe that % from CoD / BF might like the difference that giant, open field, combined arms battles make, compared to the infantry only shooter clone bases!
So then we'd have 100% along for the ride!

Didn't you guys say the lattice would solve all your problems?

*if implemented properly.
All they did was 'trim' off a very few of the small bases and then connected the dots...
Lattice would have worked if it had been implemented as per the OP.

OP is basically my spirit animal.

Do that and it would make the problem worse. The only thing slowing the zerg down are those small bases, if it weren't for those small bases the zerg would be camping and capping bio/tech/amp bases before anyone has a chance to know what's going on.

Same thing happened in PS1, except in PS1 there were a few players who could read a map and setup the PS1 cloaking AMS, PS1 mines, PS1 spitfires, PS1 motion detectors to harass/slow the zerg giving defending side a chance to trickle in.

I could see the dev thought process when they were working in Beta. "hey what about the PS1 AMS? Well seems like a good idea, but a cloak? That seems so OP. And we didn't need one in Call of Duty."

phffft, you guys are just as bad as futurists at predicting what has what an effect on what. I said the lattice system wouldn't solve anything, and you were all like, "phfffft." I said that the only way to funnel players the way you want is a WWIIONLINE Attack Objective (AO), which is an abomination.

• 
  Peak hours: 3 attack objectives

• 
  off hours: 1 attack objective.

• • 
    An abomination.

Yeah but add this:
1. Capture timers should be 30 minutes or more.
2. Capture points should be manned by 6 or more players to start flipping.
And you get:
- No more ghost-capping.
- No more 1 hour continent captures.
- 'Back and forth' fighting in the same bases over and over gets slowed down.

Bump