Problems with PlanetSide 2 as I see them.

I don't like you abusing what you know is cheesy for the KDR which you don't even need anymore, but you make a lot of valid points.

Haha, missed that one. Transport vehicles aren't really just transport vehicles in this game, of course.

Bull. The only vehicle I have that you could kill with two tank mines is an ESF. You may kill me, but you won't even kill my flash with two tank mines.

Citation needed. Do any other(?) vets confirm PS1 was "fun but boring"(???) in the first three or more years?

Beta was pretty much open to everyone. Nothing could have stopped them from opening it up officially. They even managed to make money off of it. Then again, they made a promise to release the game before 2013 with the Alpha Squad stuff, that may not have been a smart move if they weren't forced to do it.

There also is a gameplay ruining problem. It's a gamedesign bug, as I see it. Take a look:





This bug ruined night ops for infiltrator. I just don't play this class when it gets dark.

I just can't imagine why an infiltrator is glowing like a neon ad that says 'Shoot me!' I cannot imagine why a sane person could possibly do such a thing. Also, his cloaking device is loud as hell. Even jetpacks are silent! Designers got killed by NC infiltrators too much?

I said exactly this:
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...re-points-must-be-fully-manned-to-flip.68631/

I don't think the game focuses too much on KDR. I think PLAYERS focus too much on KDR.

This is for two reasons. First, because so many people are coming from CoD where pretty much the only thing that matters is KDR in the most regularly played game types, and secondly, because its one of the only statistics they actually give us to look at which is personal to us. Regions captured and regions defended isn't really personal to us - just because we happened to be in that region when it was captured/defended doesn't mean we played a massive part in its capture.

As for need 6/6 on the point to capture the base, I completely disagree. Capturing an empty base is boring. Making it take 6/6 people to capture an empty base is boring for 6 people.

All it takes is a quick check of the map to see if a particular base is being captured - you can actually see the capture progress on the map!

I don't see why 6 people should have to sit around waiting for the capture, even though the opposing force is not even willing to defend it.

Forcing 6/6 people to sit on the point to capture will also mean the enemy always knows there's 6 people grouped up in a tight bunch ready to be Liberated .

At least with capture mechanics now, you can flip the point, get into hard cover, and let the point flip itself and just stop enemies from getting to it to flip it back.

Can you imagine the enemy seeing a zone being captured, flying over in a Liberator or even an ESF, bombing the 6 people on the point, then flying off - base defended!

The discussion generated further on in the thread I linked lead to the evolution of the idea to:
"require 6/6 people, only to START a capture, then it can be left to tick over at 0/6 as per the current system".
This prevents the usual 1 lone infiltrator back-capping what 6+ people just spent 10-15mins capping...

A lone infiltrator can still run rampant hacking everything in sight and laying traps at an unattended base to roll out the carpet for their team, but 1 person shouldn't be able to do what 6 people should be doing.
The current system with regards to base capture actively encourages 'lone wolfing' rather than team play and cooperation.
It should be: You don't have 5 squad mates? You don't get to capture hexes. (Especially given the XP bonus for a hex capture)

There have also been threads discussing increasing the radius for capture points,
thereby allowing you to remain in some cover or in a better fire position while also contributing to the capture rate.
Currently you can either do one or the other effectively.

If both of these ideas were implemented properly, we'd see:
a vast improvement in how hex captures are conducted,
it would force squads as a minimum to be in a hex,
it would increase the chance of decent fights,
and the flow of battles would be more defined.

Why is that? They left the base, right? Opposing force should prevent lone wolfs from capping, not the game itself. It is your job to protect your territory. What next? Make the game aim for you?

Not at all. The current system actively discourages 'lone wolfing'. Even if you manage to snipe all the opponents and destroy vehicles -- they will just respawn in a couple of seconds and attack you in full force. Lone wolf can't do anything. Especially if the base is not connected.

Ghost capping is not the problem. Abandoned bases and lazy people are the problem. Don't abandon your base, guard it.

I used to do things like that - stay and guard a base. One of two things happened:

1. Nothing = no cert gain
2. Enemy zerg arrives and crushes myself and the few die-hards/n00bs who actually try to defend bases = no cert gain

Rarely, very rarely, a few enemy will try and cap a base and you get a decent small fight. But nearly always it is the zerg. And all it takes is 1 liberator to wipe out anything but a large defending force.

You gotta decide, if you want some certs or the base.

Well, that's the opposite of a 'lone wolf', isn't it?

Here's hoping the new "underground tunnels" actually solve some of the air/tank spamming issues for Amp Stations and Tech Plants.

Two tank mines will kill any vehicle that does not have a mine guard (which is 99.999% of people). Try it. It's the best 100 certs you will ever spend. You can even jump onto an enemy tank and throw the mines on it and run away, you don't have to have them out beforehand.

Finally someone that says what we are all thinking, I really hope SOE listens to this one, there is a lot of good stuff that would make the game a hell of a lot better.

Defending a base against a lone wolf attacker is boring enough, as it is essentially a game of whack-a-mole where you don't even know where the mole is going to pop in from (meaning he's got at least as good a chance of getting the drop on you as vice versa). Defending an EMPTY BASE on the hopes that a lone wolf will back hack it is BORING BEYOND ALL BELIEF. There's no reason the game should require people to sit back at captured bases to defend them against lone wolf back hackers, at least not unless they introduce an in-game solitaire where you can earn XP so at least you won't fall asleep at your keyboard doing guard duty.

A lone wolf on a back base, even one he can't hack, can still destroy generators, hack and destroy turrets, hack terminals, and basically wreck a base all to gain a few lousy XP. If he's lucky he'll even get a couple kills from the unlucky Engineer who happens to notice all the destroyed equipment and begins fixing it. The problem is that the game actively encourages back-wrecking bases by giving not insubstantial XP rewards for showing up at an empty and uncapturable bases and wreacking havoc.

Guarding a base that's 2 hexes behind the front lines is boring as hell and completely unrewarding in terms of XP reward. Guarding a base that's 5 hexes behind the front lines is even worse. Requiring that these bases be guarded by live people, to the detriment of both their own fun and XP gain, is a bad game design. If anything a base should be complete impenetrable once it's more than 1 hex from the front lines to prevent these idiotic back-hacks and back-wrecks.

They were also great warning systems that someone was in range. Sort of like how base turrets would fire on incoming vehicles with slow attacks until they were destroyed.

The game is all about cert gain; decisions are made based almost entirely on what will get the most certs (and secondarily where the biggest battles will be - sometimes because of the fun of the battle, sometimes for the cert gain). This is why we have opposing zergs actively avoiding one another running around the map capturing mostly empty bases only meeting when dumb luck causes them to bump into one another.

Porque No Los Dos? (Why not have both?)

But seriously, why should I have to decide?
The hard work capping a base has been done by an organised team in the spirit of the game.
Staying to defend it against loners is just plain wrong and boring.
Staying to defend it against another organised team is fun and rewarding.

Yes, it's boring. No, it's not wrong. Why do people in real life bother guarding their bases? By the way, in real life saboteurs do harass enemies and destroy objects.

And if a base is '2 hexes behind the front lines', is it capturable?

I probably have more tank mine "kills" than you do, actually. Posted that just to see if it would piss you off.

Fine.

Next time you play spend your entire session guarding a base your faction owns, 1 hex behind all the action.

Get back to me how much fun you had and how exciting it was deterring lone infils and randoms...

ok, whatever.