Sneak peek of new hex adjacency graph for Indar and a bit more!

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Higby, Mar 13, 2013.

  1. [HH]Mered4

    Oh, and devs:
    Thank you for helping them see the light. Please give lots of cookies to Higby.

    PS Do NOT screw this up. Please? ;)
    • Up x 1
  2. Rexsaw

    Great idea here.

    I just have one real piece of feedback.

    Please make it logical. If there's an easy road connecting two facilities, they should be connected. If the road is particularly long, thin, or perhaps hilly etc, maybe that would be a reason not to connect them. It needs to make sense or it will simply not be fun. Changing the map in order to make sense of the paths is just fine, but please don't just add these pipelines according to some predetermined formula even if the geography doesn't match that formula.
    • Up x 3
  3. queue

    Ugh, this is just going to sustain the zergs. And now everyone can stay in their tanks and spawn camp because it won't hurt the cap time. And when the cap is done, there is no point splitting up to probe defenses since you no longer have a choice but to roll together.

    You should be working on splitting up zergs (limiting total cap XP given per base), not funneling them through the map.

    I really don't have much of an issue with the current system. I think it would have worked well with a better base capping XP distribution system that is based on activity and difficulty and a huge bump to defense XP. This would spread out the zergs among the whole battle front and many will hang back to defend when it is worth it.

    If you roll a base with 50 tanks and only 3 enemies in the spawn room, you will get crap XP for the cap. Instead, split up, send 10 tanks to each of the 4 connecting bases, communicate on which needs more help and which needs less, and everyone maximizes XP.

    Make thought and strategy pay off. Make mindless zerging feel like XP grinding. This is starting to smell like dumbing down for a console port IMO.

    Oh and give bigger xp % bonuses for playing on less populated continents and maintain that bonus for your entire stay on the continent. All of this will spread out people nicely for some great battles.
    • Up x 6
  4. siiix

    i do not like this at all , i disliked PS1 , i highly doubt i will like this ... i like the battlefield style gameplay

    if you guys think that what ever player base PS1 had will be enough to keep PS2 going and profitable go with it, i'm sure PS1 fans will love it

    but dont be surprised if people from battlefield leave with all current and future changes, they already started to leave with all the vehicle vs infantry balancing, this type of environmental change will make this effect even worse

    i will try it when its out, but so far what i see and read i doubt i will like it
    • Up x 2
  5. Delta102

    While I'm not to fond of the system at least fix the roads to nowhere before you launch this... seriously.
    • Up x 1
  6. Netsurfer733


    Seriously must know more about brainstorming for this part right now:

    "Enhancements to the Biolab and Amp station base benefits to make them WORTH cutting off."
    • Up x 2
  7. MistaN

    Actually there are tons on ppl playing battlefield because it is the better battlefield game, obviously. They really are waiting to have more planetside in planetside 2 for them to come back to it. This isn't battlefield and the devs never wanted it to be.
    • Up x 1
  8. Netsurfer733

    And what if they decide that the 3-4 adjacent territories at all time instead of the current average of 6 is the way to go, then? Would that be satisfactory? (Because it's still in the cards, they say)
  9. WalrusJones

    The art of war would be quite strong then, I could defend a base while on the offense, cutting off enemy attackers from home base while requiring an appreciable, non ghost capping force to perform.

    A 2 link (20%) 3 link (50%) 4 link (30%) lanes system would be ideal to me.
    • Up x 3
  10. Sarmane

    We now return to the Walrus and Company vid show for this afternoons entertainment. :p

    Guys everything here looks fantastic and couldn't be happier to hear base capture mechanics being tweaked, bravo!
  11. WalrusJones

    I need to work on my flash army more.
    I am a psychotic general, not a foot soldier ;)....
    • Up x 1
  12. Eclipson

    All I saw when I read that was "Public Test Server". ITS ABOUT TIME!
    • Up x 1
  13. siiix

    this is absolutely incorrect

    PS1 was completely different game then battlefields, the advantage of PS2 was that is much larger scale but VERY similar gameplay to battlefield vehicle mode

    little by little we lose that similarity at least for vehicle warfare, the infantry-only battlefield player will never ever come over to PS2

    if the developers did not intended to be a mix between bf and ps1, well it was a sweat mistake, i enjoyed the game at 1st a lot, recently less and less with all the nefting of vehicles, this new ps1 style game play will just make the game even more like ps1 and less then battlefields

    but i have to point out no one except the developers know what they intention was, so i would not assume if it was an accident or intentional ... financially it would make more sense that they want to create a hybrid to attract far bigger player base then PS1 ever had... and as there is no competition in vehicle shooters its an easier target then infantry-only shooters where the market is flooded

    like i said i did play a little PS1 and i could not stand it... not every one likes the same type of game
    • Up x 1
  14. thrikerr

    I really wish you would stop bringing up this "art of war" stuff in every post. It does not and should not apply to PS2. Whatever metagame is going on in your head right now is an illusion. You're not playing a game of chess here. You aren't going to control the flow of a 2000 player battle by "strategically" moving a few guys around here and there to magically cut off the enemy and win the war.
  15. WalrusJones

    In a limited options system, you can control 48 out of 600 peoples actions with good coordination, you could actually do this.
    That is a twelfth of your faction on the average continent, and in a lanes system, it does take just one territory to cut off enemies and win major battles like Tawrich.

    If the attacking force at Tawrich can take on a 48 man platoon cutting them off without getting booted out of tawrich entirely, good for them.

    It isn't a pipe dream when you are already in pipes.

    People who live in pipes just call em' dreams anyhow.
    • Up x 1
  16. Hotshot53

    Yay more zerg balls. I was tired of actually achieving things and not running head on into eight platoons. I guess the game needed more farming.
    • Up x 4
  17. TheBloodEagle


    A part of me understands why this is being put in place but the other half is saying this cheapens & dumbs down the point of having huge maps; the freedom available. This pretty much just babies the direction forces should go. I'm assuming, from the responses on here, that people want to be funneled and think less about what to do.

    4-5 please, not less.
    • Up x 8
  18. Vanu Superiority

    I don't like this idea at all.

    First of all, I really have no issues with the system as is. You capture a territory, you capture the territory next to it. Seems simple enough. Not to mention I don't think shadow capping is as much of a problem since the mergers.

    Second of all, this kind of gives the impression to me that 90% of the map is irrelevant...and that only the colored areas are. I think we're gonna be ignoring a large amount of the map if we actually enacted kind of puts the game play on rails.

    Third of all, the way the connections work seems silly. So I can't attack a nearby territory that's practically right next to the one I'm in because there isn't a road connected to it in the new hex system? And how will this work around, say, zurvan? You got a bunch of ways in, each of which give influence to the base. In order to gain access to these entry ways without taking the facility (since you will want to have multiple adjacent territories to have a high influence), you will need to basically control most, of the canyons and capture who knows how many territories in order to gain influence. All because the pathways in, while close to each other in proximity, don't touch each other. I just see this map as kind of arbitrary, and it really seems to limit peoples' strategies. It funnels them into certain battles, which may be what you want to get at to an extent, but I don't think is necessary. I just don't like the idea of my strategic options being limited. I think this has the potential to make the game somewhat boring. Obviously, the solution to this would be to make the map look more and more like a spider web, with more and more connections, but at that point, you might as well just keep the map as it is. Seriously, what's wrong with the map as it is? Don't fix what IMO isn't broken.

    Sorry if I come off as harsh, I just really do not like this idea at all.
    • Up x 8
  19. VSMars

    Wait ... WHY?!?

    If the NC in your example are stupid, blind, oblivious and ignorant enough to not watch their backs, they deserve to lose. Why the hell do you want to help them?!?
    • Up x 3
  20. shadowkhat

    why are you guys making it so difficult? all those changes for something as simple as just putting hack timers back in? 1 hour on main bases 30-45 minutes on small bases would provide not only strategy, but map movement.. isntead of every major fight being at allatum,rashnu, the crown, and mao it would force people to move around the map, give a chance for people to see other continents instead of just ghost capping them. cap timers is whats needed not a total change of the maps. too much work for such a simple problem.
    • Up x 2