My opinion on the new 'rush lanes' system.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by EagleGuardian, May 29, 2013.

  1. UberBonisseur

    Some people are stupid enough to claim "we can find big battles now !" when all they had to do was open the map ONCE and check the pop filter once and for all.
    • Up x 3
  2. Loegi

    1. That's something to consider. You can't just blindly flank them anymore, which is what I said.

    2. If it's too easy, how can it be that you can't flank? Seriously, it's possible, but it now requires more effort.
    Not really, since you would deploy in a losing battle most likely.
  3. Chipay


    A simple solution that the community gave SOE when this game got released.
    Make a point require 6/6 to cap, if you do that, you really need a dedicated half squad to go and cap bases.
    There was also a suggestion to make a point require to have someone on that point for it to stay capped (as attacker) and give out small xp ticks for the people defending the point.

    But rather than implementing these small changes and see if they work, they redesigned the whole map.
    • Up x 1
  4. EagleGuardian

    Ah, yes, I should've specified that a bit more, my apologies! What I meant is that it is too easy on a continental ("strategic") level. As an outfit/squad/platoon leader, I like being able to look at the map and decide for myself where I should send my units and what bases to capture. However, the rush lanes force me to choose from a limited amount of options, thus removing an important aspect of leadership (deciding where to go next). It also removes another interesting element: uncertainty. With the new rush lanes, progression becomes very predictable, which takes away the excitement of anticipating your enemies' next move.
  5. Yalk

    I'm just happy defense is a thing now

    Occasionally you'd find a defense before, and there was the crown....but mostly it was ATTACK!!! Or "...oh everyone scattered to sit and stare at a timer instead of defending" (...and I'm not referring to when your spawn camped and you lost, I mean when you still have the walls and could possible win...)

    Also, it's nice fighting over the ground in between bases....we finally can use the whole map and not just base to base to base


    Also, both sides of this debate need to stop assuming when someone makes a pro-statement for one or the other that they are also saying it NEVER happened in the opposing system....it's annoying
    • Up x 1
  6. axiom537

    /Disagree I think your assessment & conclusion are completely wrong.

    The HEX system favored the attacker, giving them an over abundance of choice with few restrictions. The defender on the other hand was left with nothing but false choices, decide to defend base Z, only to lose the surrounding territory A, territory B, territory C and the attacker is past the base and still progressing towards its ultimate objective.

    The lattice system has shifted the amount of choices from being 99% for the attacker to more of a 50/50 between attacker and defender. It has also injected a sense of accomplishment, when capturing & holding territory.
    • Up x 3
  7. PhantomOfKrankor

    'Massive warfare' shouldn't be one or two large battles on a huge map. It should have small skirmishes, rushes, long epic battles and whatever you can think of at once in different places.

    The Hex system already had the mechanics to stop ghost capping, it's been mentioned a thousand times. But they were whined away by the same threads that begged for lattice. Influence and people on cap. Why SoE removed these mechanics just boggles my mind and made me think twice about continuing to support this game. They should have made influence and people on cap even more important.

    Change the 2/2 or 3/3 points to 10/10 or 12/12. Make influence tougher. Make cap times longer. For example if you commit 7/10 on a 40% influence base you cap it in 6 minutes (pulled that number out of nowhere). If you have a solo 'ghostcapper' 1/10 on same 40% influence make it take 20 minutes. If you can't take kill a solo guy and re-secure a base in 20 minutes, you don't deserve it. What if he runs and hides, you say? Make it so if the attackers leave cap radius for 2 minutes, it begins to revert back to owner after another minute. Adjust and balance as needed instead of scrapping the whole thing.

    It was in the game. It was whined away. Simple fixes would have worked.
    • Up x 2
  8. axiom537

    That does not stop the attackers from circumventing defenses and snaking their way around the map and we did have a requirement to have people on the point & stay there. But, that is really not the problem... The problem is that all the advantage goes to the attacker and the defender is forced to constantly react, rather then actually plan.
  9. UberBonisseur

    You could repel an attack before; but it always, and is still relying one things that has to be fixed:
    Blowing up Sunderers

    Lattice has exacerbated the problem; it was here from day 1.
    You can't exhaust the attackers until you destroy the AMS, in which case you end the fight entirely.

    There is no flow, as victory conditions are dictated by "Is the Sunderer alive and working" ?
    Yes ? Attack wins
    No ? Defense wins


    Defense is the easiest thing in the game provided you know how to AVOID THE FIGHT ENTIRELY and go straight for the AMS using aircraft, for example. On the other hand, attack always had this obnoxious advantage of both position and spawn times.
  10. axiom537

    It was not whined away, It was a serious issue that has been debated since BETA, I know I was one of the Testers expressing concerns when issues with the HEX system started popping up. They even modified the geography on Amerish, in an attempted to solve some of the problems with the HEX system, they added 6/6 requirements on points, they required people to stay on the points, they added influence. A ton of things had been tried, the problem is they didn't work.

    Now I am not opposed to adding some HEX mechanics to the lattice system, such as adding satellite outposts, or even removing a few of the lattice links and allow those smaller bases to work according to the adjacency HEX system, just as long as it does not allow the attackers to bypass a defended base.
  11. Chipay


    You're making a ******** statement, OFCOURS PEOPLE CAN STILL CAP BASES AND GO AROUND THE ZERG THAT"S THE POINT, YOU STILL NEED TO DEFEND BASES, but this time you're defending a base with 6 attackers and not spawn in a empty base to just flip the point AKA IT STOPS GHOSTCAPPING AND NOT SMALL FIGHTS LIKE THE LATTICE DOES.
    /rant
    • Up x 1
  12. axiom537

    Did you seriously just suggest, that they need to fix defenders ability blow up sunderers?

    If the defender is going after the Sunderer then he is not avoiding the fight, he is actively trying to win it and participating in it. You are just mad that YOU CAN NO LONGER AVOID THE FIGHT ENTIRELY by going around and capping the UNDEFENDED empty territory you have adjacency too.
    • Up x 1
  13. axiom537

    Nothing you said makes sense...

    edit..I think I sort of understand you...

    But you are still not getting it... Under the HEX System, almost ALL choice and advantage goes to the attacker, therefore, you can not adequately plan a defense and since each HEX has multiple points of adjacency, then the defenders must either spread themselves out in an attempt to defend all of those points or they must react to each capture as they occur. The later occurred most often, resulting in a never ending game of round-robin, with less direct confrontation (big battles)...
  14. Boomotang

    This is an oxymoron. Having smaller numbers never gives you an advantage in taking over a major facility or territory in any form of war that I know of.

    Here are the advantages that smaller numbers gives you:

    Greater cohesion because of less people to keep track of. Because of this they may be more efficient and have the ability to win fights when outnumbered to the ratio of about 4 to 6. Obviously if greatly outnumbered by a higher ratio than this, it is ridiculous to think they should be able to win. Therefore, they have to pick and choose specific tactical objectives (holding generators, setting up a flank with a sunderer, holding a specific section of the wall), and not focus on large strategic ones (capturing territory).

    Less visibility from the enemy due to a smaller footprint and greater cohesion (people's ability to stay disciplined). There are other advantages, but those are the ones I can think of that pertain to PlanetSide 2.
  15. EagleGuardian

    That is true, but it does help when trying to capture smaller, less defended territories, which will then help you in cutting off the enemy's supply route.
  16. PhantomOfKrankor

    Now you are defining ghost capping as a force of any size just going somewhere a defense isn't present? That's off the point entirely.

    Yes, sitting around a cap point isn't a load of fun, that's the point. If you have more people on a point at the front line of a battle with decent influence, it goes faster. One or two people trying to push a single line of Hexes down the side of a map with low influence, not so much. It takes long enough for them to give up or for you to easily cut-off or counter. Sitting around camping a spawn or sitting in their MBTs isn't fun either, but people still do that during the time a point could be capped. All this time and all these complaints about ghost capping being too easy so we have to redesign the entire map, but having to stand on a point would make things too hard? What.

    Very few people would be willing to sit alone on a cap for 20-30 minutes. That's how it would stop it or slow it to the point it could be countered either by killing them or taking adjacency.
    • Up x 1
  17. axiom537

  18. UberBonisseur


    Grab an ESF, a light assault with 2 C4, nosedive on the Sundy and blow it up.
    Or just have your squad leader within 100m and press Squad deploy
    Time spent in the battle: 10 seconds

    Compare that to the guy on the ground shooting his way through dozens of infantry.
    If you want to be efficient, find the sundy, leave the base, use your cheese.


    I dislike the fact that a single man using cheese can "destroy" a battle.
    I also dislike that Sunderers can spawn infinite ammount of troops with no drawback, faster than a spawn room can pump defenders out.


    If you are a so proud "EPIG BIG BATTLEZ" afficionado, aknowledge the issue already.
    Maybe your only concern is to shoot people in the face thinking one side will eventually win, and you have not noticed yet, but if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me.
  19. axiom537

    What supply route? Under the HEX, capturing the undefended territory around a defended position was meaningless, except that it allowed the attacker to take territory from the defenders freely, while they are defending a different base or territory. Thus making it a lose lose situation for the defenders, if they pull troops to try and stop losing surrounding territory, then they thin themselves out and lose the base or they hold the base and lose all the surrounding territory and now the attackers have more adjacency deeper into their territory.
  20. EagleGuardian

    E.g. resources or specific vehicles one can only get at a nearby location.