Like Needles In My Eyes (1)

Now this is how you create a dynamic battle flow while also keeping a direction and streamline the whole thing. Supported a hundredfold!

It's also what numerous people have been saying, and what common sense and a look at the system that worked for ten years in PS1 would be saying for that matter.
Once more it makes me wonder how incredibly clueless this whole project was handled from the start...grrrr. Allright, allright, i'm not going there again. They have no idea what they're doing, but maybe with the help of threads like these with some pictures to illustrate the problem and provide a solution we will all get there together. I still have hope.

The system in the OP is, with maybe or maybe not some tweaks here and there, the perfect middle ground between bypassing enemies completely with too open hexes, and doing the same **** over and over again with the confined lattice. This is the system that you would want to keep the fighting fresh and interesting.

I would love to see this change.

I think there's scope for a lot of the currently interim bases to exist as hackable points with the following features for the owner:

* infantry terminals
* vehicle resupply points
* vehicle shields
* defensive guns
* flash-only vehicle terminals

I'm fine with the defensive guns remaining, because without the proximity of a spawn room they are only dangerous if a squad decides to set up shop and use them - and it becomes much easier to counteract them.

Having all these little bases around that can be used as places to hide sunderers, etc. would be awesome.

I also think that most/all of the listed features above should also be on a deployed Galaxy, meaning if players want to create their own outpost somewhere, they can.


Then to flesh this out, I would:
* rework deploy-on-squad-leader to spawn you at the closest friendly spawn point to the squad leader only (which might be miles away)
* reduce the cooldown on using spawn beacons, so if a spawn beacon is up it can be used more reliably as a spawn method
* increase the cooldown on spawn beacon placement so you get maybe one every couple of hours
* remove the requirement of being a squad leader to place a spawn beacon - let anyone do it

A coordinated squad of 12 can therefore place a spawn beacon every 10 minutes by rotating who places it. This is fine. It means these little outpost bases may well become spawn beacon places - because of the proximity of an inventory terminal and usable cover.

EDIT:

Actually, what would be awesome is if the interim outposts had infantry terminals, vehicle resupply towers and flash terminals and defense guns... and these were all permanently set to NS-faction. So anyone can use them at any time. No hacking required. Just show up and use it.

So whoever controls the ground gets to use the facility. You don't want the other guys using it? Don't let them near it. Or blow it up so they have to repair it first.

Vehicle shields might need to be faction-specific, though...

PS1 towers weren't connected to the lattice, so they could be hacked by anyone at any time. Once claimed, a tower was a spawn room for infantry and a good vantage point for snipers, etc. - and with only four controlled points of entry (2 on the roof, 2 on the ground) meant once taken it was hard to retake from a force that wanted to keep it.

So they were basically fixed-position AMSs that you couldn't dislodge with vehicles (air or ground) - because you couldn't shoot them and the roof was a great place for AV infantry to attack nearby tanks, but not vice versa.

However... the moment a tower was captured it showed up on everyone's map as having been captured - so a defending force was immediately alerted to your presence. As such, a 'stealthy' approach typically avoided towers until the last minute, while a major offensive aimed to gain control of the towers ASAP.

The tower layout was interesting in itself:
Basement: spawn room
Ground floor: entry doors
First floor: control point
Top floor: Roof access

This meant that an offensive on a tower could hope to separate the defenders from the cap point, at which point it was usually a good indicator the tower was lost. However, reinforcement cavalry typically arrived from the roof via Galaxy drop, meaning if you were defending the spawn room then the attackers would get hit in the rear by the troops arriving by Gal.

If I recall correctly (it has been some time!), Towers left unattended would eventually flip to the ownership of the base they were attached to.

I definitely think the OPs suggestion is totally doable after we hve continental lattice. Actually this is somethingi expect ho happen whn we get continental conquest.

Okay. Thank you. I had a feeling it would be like that.

It sounds like they could re-purpose some of the current outposts to function like this. They would have to remove the vehicle pads though. (Perhaps having MBT terminals at almost every base and Sun-D terminals at all is what gives us such a vehicle spam problem?)

But they would definitely have to add more facilities per-continent. Nine (or seven) is not nearly enough for this system to work!

It might be worth to mention that it took only 1 minute to capture the tower and if you were an advanced hacker you could do it in 15 seconds. Hence there was practically no camping at all.

Radical idea, but I like it very much!
It really feels that there are too many stops in between meaningful bases.
Defenders, when pushed back, don't have much time to set up a defence because the enemy is probably just 100-200m away.

That's another thing. If the defenders had more time to prepare not only would the zerg NOT instantly overwhelm the next base, but the defenders might have the radical idea of pushing out to counter the zerg in the open field! (So many radical concepts!)

BTW, your sig is epic.

The old lettuce is fixing problems left and right.

I really really really hope a dev reads this.

PS1 lettuce was good lettuce. Crunchy, zesty and full of flavour.

Less outposts sounds good, though perhaps keep them and take them totally off the lattice system so that they can be bypassed regarding captures but fought over and from. Anyone can own them, you just rock up and kill everybody else, old school style.
Chunkier more defensible primary areas that require many cap points. Big bases should have multiple 'battles' in them to resolve ownership. the harder it is to cap the bigger structures the more 'front' you will develop as the status quo for forts requires mass team work to shift, not just a zerg...
Bunkers and trenchworks on perimeters of bases would be amazing.
Improved infantry friendly terrain for open areas, depressions, rocks, little forts or ruins, ruins would be cool.....

I mentioned something like this a long time ago when they first introduced lattice....

Though it was for the old pro-hexers...

anyways, just eliminate some bases from the resource/territory control and leave em as spawn outposts.

Don't "instaflip" like facility satellite outposts from HEX, but have significantly reduced cap times.

They'd offer tactical advantage in holding them, and would offer behind the lines strikes in order to convey a flank opportunity for your faction.

You basically described towers from PS1, and they way it would work under the old lettuce.

Love this idea. Also... where are the destructible spawn tubes/SCUs??? I want those back from Planetside 1 along with the level design and base capture mechanics. Overall I think the OP hit the nail on the head. I've heard from several outfit members of my own outfit and several other outfits mention this concept in passing. I hope SOE take notice and allow the game to become more than just a cert farm/zerg lane-fest of a game and actually implement more chances for platoon strategy as well as large, open, spread out battles. I'm tired of hopping like the OP suggested. This whole problem is important to address NOW, seeing as how major content updates are on the horizon. IMO, better to fix it now and improve the current playstyle rather than have to take 1 step forward, and 2 steps backwards in regards to their basic mechanics and gameplay.

I support your thread and idea wholeheartedly. The changes you proposed (along with the resource revamp) will make this game play more like PS1 and make it a truly different experiance. After reading your post, the game's flaws are more pronounced then before as I sit around spawn camping all day every day.

The game plays like BF4 w/o load screens. A bunch of BF4 maps on one continent. I'd like that to change, but I'm going to play devil's advocate.

SoE couldn't possibly make this happen because of performance. A lot more people will be fighting over these bases and the battles will be epic. Possibly 300-600 people on average at a base. People's computers / optimizations can't handle that stress. So HOPEFULLY SoE will go to the direction we want when all of the hardcore optimizations are finished and searhus (the next continent coming) will have less territories and terrain in between bases that will support a combined arms effort.

Also for people that still have lower performing computers or they like small squad stuff....they need the resource revamp.

Resource revamp + less territories + optimizations + continental conquest + varied terrain + stricter spawn mechanics (so we have a reason to use a galaxy) + base hacking (spec ops objectives) + LLU (capture the flag) = the game we always wanted

We have a long ways to go for that

It all boils down to the hex/zone resource system that SOE came up for PS2. It was a replacement for the NTU resource system that we had in PS1 and it is the sole reason why the continents are so cramped by outposts. The ownership of a facility controls the ownership of the zone/resource so we need to have one facility for each zone. This was an obvious mistake and adding the lattice over that was just a cheap attempt to solve the poor gameplay it created. SOE will have to do the drastic change described by the OP if they'd like to see the game success.

However, the OP writes about getting rid of the outposts, but I would urge SOE to get rid of the zones as well. They brought in the numerous outposts. If you take them away then take the zones away as well. The reason is that it would let us use the whole maps for tactics. SOE states that the maps are 8km by 8km in size. The truth is that they are hardly 6km by 6km due to the pathetic death zone which circles the entire map. If you think about it we are talking about 64km^2 vs 36km^2 which means that we have been playing in more than 40% smaller maps than advertised. Well, I do admit that the most of that area is water, but that area was perfect for flanking in PS1. It could be that in PS2 too. Besides, if the whole map area would be available for gameplay then the major bases could be moved further apart from each other making the maps even less cramped.

I'm so agreeing with this post. I even have my own thread about this problem.
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...d-be-longer-roads-between-bases.143731/page-4

Bump for great justice.

Also, other threads have begun complaining about the distance between bases. If you see one, link the OP to this thread!

Isn't that my picture? Where I moved the north warpgate south because it looks like it's too far away from the others, even though it's an equal triangle.

Yeah i took it from your thread .

I forgot that you moved the WG tho