Over-pop and planetary bonuses

I am not familliar with the PS1 system, what was it like? why was the lattice system implemented correctly in PS1 and incorrectly in PS2?

I think I broke it down pretty well the linked thread. But mostly it worked because we had a huge amount of content on release with the original Planetside compared to the relatively little content we got with PS2. We had the ability to drain bases anywhere in the world and deny the benefits they gave to the enemy . What PS1 players call "GEN HOLDS" were some of the most epic things you could do in Planetside and if you could hold it down you would literally turn the tied of other battles if you hit the right base and denied the right benefit. The downside to this was it was boring to just sit and wait for things to happen but on TS with a bunch of friends, drinking beers, laughing, having a good time just waiting for the $hit storm and platoons of enemies trying to recover the gen. Those were the best of times. /nostalgic glasses

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2/index.php?threads/planetside-vs-planetside-2-lattice.223102/

It would be nice if something like that was implemented. Unfortunately DBG doesn't seem interested in making any mayor modifications to the game, and they also have a low amount of resources allocated to Planetside 2.

EDIT: How much would it cost to buy Planetside 2 (like the servers and the game itself), not that I have that much money, but I could come up with some kind of plan(like crowdfunding), you can always try.......

I don't like balancing by hex solutions. Mainly because it punishes teamwork. Imagine all three factions have equal pop. With a hex bonus, and a force half your size able to hold off a zerg, teamwork is punished. You're pretty much forced to not use platoons to be competitive, and that would be a shame in PS2. I know many people aren't enticed by extra XP, but as a semi-new player with characters on all 3 factions, I need all the certs I can get, plus I like fighting for the under dog. I'd switch factions.

It may not be the most beneficial fight to be in, as transportation should have a real purpose and be rewarded in this game, but there should always be a way to hop straight in to combat if you just want action, without a platoon or friends or unit. Casual gamers should be able to hop on and blow stuff up for a solid 30 minutes before work if they want. I really like Vamperial's input on the next page. I wasn't around for PS1, but the more I learn about it the better it sounds. Having a convoy required to supply the front lines sounds like a perfect solution. Convoy duty and convoy ambushes sound like a perfect game for small squads that don't want to spam rockets in to rooms in 96+ fights. Plus the mechanics are already there, just add cortium stations to bases and you're set. Maybe let infantry be free, but let consumables and vehicles cost nanites.

I'm definitely with you, I enjoy the game and could care less about rewards, but there are plenty of players who need something shiny at the end of the tunnel. Just look at some of the replies to this thread, they don't want 1/2 off air to go away just because of the certs they'd lose, without any care to gameplay. I'm just worried too many players would get bored and leave if rewards were taken away for winning.

I completely understand what you mean by players not taking responsibility. Flying on Connery is a perfect example. You have every pilot who wants to work as a team on VS, then solo and 2-man teams on TR and NC complaining all day about gank squads without even trying to do anything about it. Cowboy up and form a resistance, shut up and take it, or just leave. But your position of placing all the blame on players is a little out of line. SOE and Daybreak have made plenty of mistakes, and there's always room for improvement. I like the sound of the small fights you mention during the hex days, but I also understand that combat evolved to 3 opposing zergs never fighting each other. The PS1 lattice system sounds like the best of both worlds. You've got the main fight in the front line, where small squads can directly hurt the enemy zerg by denying them resources, while drawing them away from the fight to protect their supply line. Talk about a perfect role for the Valkyrie. A small sneaky aircraft flying beneath the tree line looking for a convoy for the 6-man team to hit. Maybe lay some mines up ahead, snipe any engineers that try to disarm them, or hit the convoy as the first truck blows. It could be great.

Not necessarily.

The biggest problems of being outpopped right now are a lack of ways to exit the spawn safely, a lack of ways to achieve vehicle superiority after the attackers roll up and no weaknesses in ganging up on a smaller group of players.

Exiting the spawn safely can be achieved by offering more exits spread out over the base, similar to AMP stations which are a prime example where spawncamping doesn't really work (although the alternative exits are still not often used). Or by introducing new mechanics like being able to droppod into the base region from the spawn to create truly impossible to bottle up spawns.

A lack of ways to achieve vehicle superiority is by removing the immense powergap between infantry and vehicles. For example by giving infantry a range of utility AV options that cost resources to destroy resources, which could instantly also mean that vehicles don't have to be side-lined anymore with walls and can fight on top of points and inside bases again.

And finally you can introduce weaknesses to large groups. For example by adding a cortium system for spawning. Without cortium spawning infantry, vehicles and equipment takes longer and more resources. With cortium it takes the normal amount of time and resources. Deployed Sunderers would leech cortium from the nearest lattice-linked base. This creates a feedback loop for overpopping: Have too many guys and you go through your cortium much faster. The defenders can also use scorched earth tactics, where they deliberately leech their base from resources after which the zerglings first have to restock the base to mount a proper attack, which creates weaknesses again especially if you store a part of the cortium in destroyable silo's/nodes so the small team can leech resources this way.

There's also ways to even the odds a bit between defenders and attackers. For example by adding a mechanic where the timer of the base will increase/decrease based on the amount of kills each faction gets. When you outpop your opponents 2:1 each kill for the zerglings will take 1 second off the timer (assuming they are attacking) while each kill of the underpopped team would add 3 seconds to the timer, and vehicles/aircraft add/subtract more from the timer. This gives the defenders a way to defend the base without having to attack the points which are usually situated in easily to defend area's. It also means that while the Zerglings can more easily push their advantage with numbers and get more kills they still need to be careful and not give too many kills away.

Maybe the black-ops idea could help. It was an idea to allow players to automatically be assigned to the lowest pop faction. Although the idea from the devs back when it was being worked on was to only allow NS weapons. I would prefer to allow these black-ops players to have access to either their own faction weapons in the faction colors they are supporting (which could be nice supporting Vanguards with Magriders for example) or access to the weapons of the faction they joined.

Because forcing the top players into the other faction isn't going to be the best thing.

It does make a big difference. The attackers wouldn't be able to predict where you would start. It would force the attackers to focus on things like the point and Sunderer(s), rather than being able to focus all their attention on the spawn without repercussions. If the defenders take out the spawn options they stand a chance even in a 3:1 scenario as any kill they make will start evening the odds until new spawnoptions are being placed.

It wouldn't change much would it?
First situation: Only one faction has a benefit.
Second situation: One faction has two benefits, the others have one benefit from the continent they are on. I don't think this is a good solution.

Most Zergs form from one side leaving. Biolabs are a prime example: It takes a lot of people to push through, and once you do there's not much in the way for you to take the next base. So the defenders leave for another place leaving you with an even bigger overpop.
But this also happens in equal pop scenario's. When the attackers gain a foothold, they capture the points, they surround the spawn eventually... And since the defenders now can't do anything for a few minutes, people leave for another fight. Suddenly the next fight is easier for the attackers, causing a snowball effect. I even expect players looking at the map to say "hey, they are capturing that base, so that's an easier fight for me" and then to go there not realizing they are contributing to a Zergforming until they are there.

Player Made Bases. The construction system.

Because the Candylanders screaming for it didn't consider the unintended consequences.

Arbitrary change is subject to random outcomes.

You do understand the PS1 lattice system plays nothing like the broken PS2 lattice system, right?

I didn't play PS1. I was playing Battleground Europe when PS1 was out.

Your comment sounds a lot like pining for what was- going backward doesn't move us forward.

I've got nothing against change. However, it has to happen for good reason ('because I want it' is not a good reason), and the consequences need to be understood. Arbitrary cares not for consequences, only gratification.

If you read anything, then you would have realised all these people have reasons.

As for your go to response of "needs player solutions instead of game change", you are advocating to keep removing the challenge for one side while keeping it also unchallenging because virtually impossible for the other end.

Heres an extreme example: imagine if aircraft got launch damage back. This means noseguns that are slightly weaker than current TB, rocketoods better than current TB and capable of annihilating an entire platoon in 5 rockets due to insane AOE and damage. Liberators can kill 2 to 3 vehicles per strafing run, or just hang above and let their bellycanon wipe out entire bases.
Then all G2A weapons would get nerfed, and would only be available near the enemy warpgate. So if you are attacked by aircraft you need to get your AA all the way at an enemy warpgate and drive/walk it to the attacked base.

If enough people do it, its "effective" enough to remove aircraft. And its a player solution! Its completely 100% in favor for aircraft and crushes the gameplay for eceryone and everything else.
And thats constantly what you are doing. You arent advocating player solutions, in fact you've proposed exactly 0 ideas to enhance this, you are only advocating to keep certain equipment and playstyles powerful while their "counters" are impractical and far less powerful.

Every reason is arbitrary and emotional.

Wrong. I am warning against arbitrary change in order to appease those who can't hack the challenge posed, and arguing that the solutions being requested already exist. Arbitrary change begets unintended consequences which in turn require arbitrary solutions. Only one thing provides a lasting and sane answer to the bad man being successful: player-made, in-game solutions.


There should be a minor league for online PvP play. One year playing Genocide, another year playing Air Warrior 3, and another year playing HLDM1. Those that make it can then move on to games that offer asymmetrical team play.

You know what is the problem? Pretending to balance fights adjusting xp is nonsense, as players do not look at how much xp they are getting.

I think devs should consider to tweak the nanites regeneration rate and respawn timer. Fighting a bigger force should feel less painful if they do not roll out one tank after another and if you can somehow slow them down.

The problem is nerfing vehicles availability and creating downtimes in pew pew (even if very short) seem taboo in ps2.

As alternative we could really use another leadership tool: 1 commander per faction coordinating all faction movement. A smart general could easily channel people to the battles where they are needed.

We talked about this. As you yourself looked up (but apparently didnt read), the moment theres a reason it cannot be arbitrary.
As for things being emotional, Well duh. Its a game, its entire purpose is to create emotional responses, and even though these games offer negative emotions in failure its overcomming that challenge that give the positive emotion we seek. Because no matter what, the end result of the game needs to be a positive emotion or the game will fail. (otherwise bug riddled games that cause rage would reign supreme)

And what about your reactions? All aimed at preservation of the "challenge". And what do you get out of that challenge? An emotion. And you defend that with more emotions. So many emotions in fact that you rarely add reasons (meaning most of your words are arbitrary), and you have practically never ever added facts or something to back up your claims. And with all your emotions you ignore the facts, reasonings and things to back up claims from other people.

Take your claim right here: "arguing for solutions that already exist", Except that the problem is that the solution is inadequate. Its like removing all primary weapons from the VANU and claiming they still are fully capable of fighting because sidearms work as a solution. Sure its a "challenge", but its also a cakewalk for the opposing teams. Which is exactly why its better to balance and keep the challenge equal.

That's very true. But why isn't it working in ps2?
In one word: redeploy.

In ps2 you cannot really disrupt enemy forces because people can come back to defend in 10 seconds. And they do not need coordination, teamplay, vehicles.

How can one realistically make a diversion as long as any soldier on the map can ignore rules of time and space?
If enemies had to ho back yo warpgate, regroup, thrn get a Galaxy they would need TIME, and this people relocation would give a few minutes of advantage to the outnumbered faction.

I have zero doubts about it: this is not about lattice or hexs map, Redeploy is a design mistake, it's a monster and it should go away.

ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
   "his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
   synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable;More
   casual, wanton, unmotivated, motiveless, unreasoned, unsupported, irrational, illogical, groundless, unjustified;
   personal, discretionary, subjective
   "an arbitrary decision"
   antonyms: reasoned, rational
   • (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
     "arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible"
     synonyms: autocratic, dictatorial, autarchic, undemocratic, despotic, tyrannical, authoritarian, high-handed;More
     absolute, uncontrolled, unlimited, unrestrained
     "the arbitrary power of the prince"
     antonyms: democratic
   • Mathematics
     (of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.

Thank you.

Read that part and then this part:

You are saying that the reasons are arbitrary, while the entire point of arbitrary is that there is no reason behind it.

As for your "Thank you", you seem to misunderstand. You are using "emotional" as if its a reason to discount other people's words, which is both wrong and would disqualify your words most of all.

Re-deploy has range limitations.
As well, it allows you to actually defend a base without having to literally get around a very likely aircraft barricade at the warp-gate.
Which could kill aircraft, tanks, infantry easily.

A diversion? Easy, make a target, have resistance to taking or destroying it.
Redeploy doesn't prevent distance being used as a time killer - re-deploying itself takes time: More time, the further the distance.
Attack a different base, if you want to cause a larger diversion.

As well, it actually does take Coordination, otherwise it's a stream of allied & enemy infantry at spawn rooms or sunderers.
Vehicles are kinda important, so without anyone coordinating, you'd have one side with vehicles, and the other without:
Unless inside a base, that's a easy win really for the vehicles.

Hex allowed any difficulty to be avoided entirely.
Lattice prevents such.
Re-deploy allows you to actually move around, easily slower, without being mauled by aircraft on every road.
Just make the re-deploy timer longer, if need be, and ta da.... longer 'enforced' travel time that usually is bested by any vehicle.

Strange because I've been moving from Andavri to the right side of the map back and forth all afteroon...

Those limitations, admitted they are not bugged, do not prevent players from teleporting from a base to another. The only existence of this feature simply kills any chance to effectively split a zerg creating a diversion.

If it's requesting reinforcements, then it allows it, assuming the quota ain't met.

To teleport between lattice points (1 by 1 , assuming the above isn't happening) takes time per jump.
Imagine if all it took was several liberators, flying around the roads between bases to wipe out every single vehicle, and infantryman traveling to the front line.
Could camp said road, blocking everything on the ground from even escaping.

Also means, if an enemy redeploys to the warp-gate (which if wasn't allowed at all, would be hell if stuck etc), you're left possibly on the wrong side of the lattice, with no enemy to fight unless you spend nanites or walk to the nearest base hoping the fight doesn't end before then.
Or re-deploy, and fly, assuming no enemy A2A pilots are stalking near it.

If you can't split a zerg due to re-deploy... you aren't going to be able without re-deploy.
As the zerg will be able to garrison up, and take whatever you have before any allied resistance can form.
Let alone before it simply becomes an attrition battle, with them having the numeric advantage - And no way for allies to even get close to the base, if they have any aircraft.

30 second respawn timers. Don't know if it would fix anything but at least everyone would be ******** about that and forget all about this.

Yeah! Because its better to create a nonsensical problem than to have a discussion about current mechanics!

Hey, werent you one of those guys that keep screaming that the devs take their ideas from idiots? Well you just contributed!