Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Higby, Mar 13, 2013.
Amazing news, couldn't be happier.
It's not only your post, I've read a couple already, sorry if I missunderstand you but it sounds like you think that these lanes will be the only place people can fight at. We will still be able to utilize the whole map, making it an awesome chance to flank the zerg. I'am sorry but I really can't see the problem and trust me am one of the most negative persons you can find but this actually have alot of potential.
And to all of the BF fans that complains about Planetside 2 not being Battlefield on a large scale anymore. Tough luck? This isn't and never was Battlefield. I love battlefield but I don't want a clone, on a larger scale with another name. If you don't like the game why are you sticking with it? It makes no sense that you would continue to lurk the forums of a game you hate. Come with some constructice critiscism instead. Help the community instead of just complaining
You just took a giant leap in the right direction SOE. This is likely the most wanted thing people want to see right now. The addition of the test server will help your development process with mountains of better and more accurate feedback as well. You could even just unlock 1 continent at a time to test this hex hybrid on each of them to the full extent.
As a sidenote I suggest you run the test server like you ran beta in that you lock and unlock it only when you want something tested otherwise you'll see a large chunk of players just play there instead of on the actual servers. Constantly getting new toys before everyone else seems like a good enough reason to just fight there.
Are you are considering exp points for defending a base/facility? Now many people do not bother to defend because of lack of it.
Two things. First, your faction's zerg is going to have limited choices of where to go next, just like theirs. The chances that the two will meet up and blow each other to pieces is now much higher than before, which prevents one zerg from just steamrolling their way to the warpgate without resistance.
Second, if you were just beaten by a giant tank zerg you now have a very good idea of where they'll go next. This gives you lots of time to prepare that base for their arrival, which means laying mines, repairing turrets, putting up an AMS or pulling some vehicles of your own. It's much easier for a smaller coordinated group to defend a base against a zerg if they have enough time to prepare beforehand and I hope we'll get more tools to encourage this in the future. Even something as simple as having 5 minutes to lay down AT mines can make the difference between a vehicle zerg steamrolling you or getting wiped out. Before people wouldn't bother because they couldn't predict where the zerg would head next, now it's obvious.
Alternatively you can leave and go to some other place on the map, because even with 2-3 links per base there will still be 4+ bases being contested at any time all along your faction's borders. That gives you, say, between 4 and 8 different locations to choose from. Still plenty of room for smaller fights, especially since zergs will now be funneled into predictable places.
Indeed its not, though Its important to add (and prehaps I should put this in my sig - my positions are allways sensitive to evidence, fallible and thus, subject to change) my position on this has softened somewhat. Largely through dicussion with members of my outift who's opinion I respect, other PS2 players etc etc.
As such, I'm happy, by and large that things on the tatical level, at least in principle, should be ok.
My problem however, remains in that I think there remain issues at the stategic level. THat is where people and how people go to battles.
My issue here and how it relates to the point your making, is that this system effectively makes every point you might have effect at 'the front' and in virtue of game mechanics removes the the 'flanks'.
Yes you can attack to the flank of a base, but unlike the current hex sysem you cannot attack to the flank of an enemy force. As the enemy force will (at least in principle) be spread out across the entire area upon which we can currently have any strategic effect.
So for example, in the current system. With examples from Miller - Lets imagine BRTD, Goon and OCB are at Hvar. Wasp, IX and LSD are attempting to attack hvar from the north. In this situation, in an attempt to draw forces away from Hvar and thus, hopefully aid the attacking forces in making a break though. DL and ABTF attack NS secure Data lab. This draws OCB away from Hvar to arrest this. And tada we've made a strategically importnat move by attacking the flank of a major battle.
As this system is laid out atm, thats simply not a valid move as per the game rules. We won't be able to effect this, as untill we capture Hvar attacking Ns secure data lab is not a valid move. Thus we attack through Hvar, or we switch to another front (say Alltum).
AS i've noted, if there was something we could do visa ve metagame, that didn't necessarily invole 'capping territory' but still had a strategic impact that would require a reaction from the opposing team. My fears are groundless.
Does my concern make sense now?
You already get a 10-15% XP boost when defending a facility, meaning you're making that much more XP than the attackers on every action. The only difference is you're getting it all the time rather than as a lump sum at the end of the fight.
MY point is simply this, given that most of the ideas floating around regards to game development are.
1) Largely drawing from a number of sources - lets take it as granted people have played other FPS, been involved in the various dicussions on forumside, PSU etc.
2) Have at minium dozens of contributors.
For example, my own logistcs idea, it turned out, even in the orginal bits, not to be orginal and there had been a near identical post on the forums during the beta, asking for next to similar things.
And well.. as per the lattice/corridor system, thats been around as a game mechanic since at least, at least battlefied 1942.
Sorry but its the enviroment I come from, plagerism is a big deal to me and I'm seeing a lot of behavior dive really close it it, here on PSU and elsewhere. I feel compelled to speak out against it.
None of these ideas are stricly speaking orginal. Thats not an argument against these ideas (indeed its largely irrelevant who came up with what as to whether its a good idea or not). But it is important.
Looks great !
Now there is fewer links between bases, how about some kind of decay of ownership if a base is cut off from the warp gate ? Every bases cut off from the warp gate but still linked to the enemy gate will slowly become neutral. The aim is To give players a way To kick players out of the bases like the crown or a biolab full of NC maxes.
matt, since tech labs provide us with MBT spawns, why not have biolabs provide MAX-units and amp stations provide liberators?
I also appreciate that my concerns largely lie out of the relevance for a lot of people. Namely small-medium sized organised outfits. Which are to be charitable 20-30% of the player base.
Yet, at the same time. ITs a compelling style of play that the game current allows. I think to no ones deteriment. Indeed, I think as the game ages you'll find more people taking this up. Playing the objective for the objectives sake - I would call it.
And if fine, the game mechanics must be changed in order to improve gameplay for larger outfits and causal players. THen arguably, so be it. At the same time though. I'd want be an advocate for my position which is simply - at the same time don't destroy our gameplay.
To wit: if we are going to do down the route of greater stragetic linearity in terms of territory control. This should be compensated with more strategic options, for example having stategically relevant game features on the map beyond simply capturing points. In order to keep the total level of the richness and lateral nature of stategic play as a whole the same.
I created an account just to post it. I play this game a lot, I am level 34 on Ceres playing only HA (no vehicles).
You make a sandbox game and then put in artificial constraints to fix? Very very bad idea, please do not do it.
The problem with the metagame is that taking/losing bases is meaningless, so main goal of players is not strategic, but cert farming.
The problem is not the Zergs not fighting each other, the problem is the Zerg. We need more medium size fights instead of 1-2 big zergs.
Instead of lattice system (which is an artificial, illogical construct on a hex based map), do something to enhance the strategic play.
- Remove some of the useless little bases, especially on the north side of Indar.
- Make owning / losing bases more meaningful
- Resources are way too abundant
- Make bases more defensible (easy step: - add more HP to turrets, 3-5 times as much, add turrets to small bases)
- Add more options for squad leaders so they can reward defending / attacking certain bases
- Create incentives for people to fight on other continents.
- Deployment system: fix this, so people can spawn in bases that need defending (base is being capped, defenders outnumbered). This alone will solve ghost capping. Currently I see a base that is being capped and I have to redeploy 2-4 times to get there? It is bad. Also there is a problem when reinforcements are needed and all options are in the same base (main base + outposts).
- Add "ammo" to engi repair gun (not replenishable by ammo pack), so people cannot just repair behind a rock indefinetely or make repair impossible out in the field - you would need a base or a sunderer
- Enhance logistics aspect of the game, so supply lines count more - eg: base cut off - reduced drawing of ammo/vehicles at the base. Currently any base can hold out forever if enough people there
- Make hacking / destroying terminals a valid tactic, currently it is way too easy to restore them. If I can sneak into a tank-spawn base, then I should be able to inflict real harm.
Creative tactical solutions? At the moment with the current game that term actually means something. However , given the current state of vehicular play , i.e entirely useless , the game is entirely decided by numbers , except for Biolabs , were the max's force multiplier can clearly been seen. The bases just cannot be defended effectively at the moment when your outnumbered.
Equal fights that depend upon the tactical insight of squad leaders and general skill almost never happen. The only places they do occur is around Hex's that are not the the usual Zerg route and happen exclusively between outfits.
Unless they're are multiple objectives within each Hex which are can be defended by few against many: Then Nothing will change
Territory will just be capped like a train until the zergs equal each other and then we will end up with 3 Indar's
Also , Regent rock leads on the scarred mesa skydock? and not onto xenotech? Ha do me a favor , watch how many zergs just ignore that fact and slam straight into xenotech. Why? Because Zergs dont think , its all about path of least resistance.
Woooooohhhh! Hooooooohhhh! Test Server! and Meaningful Battles! I don't know which I'm more excited about!
This move exemplifies the phrase "Better Late than Never". But honestly I was leaning towards the "Never" side. Very good move SOE, very good! Now you're up to about a 6/10 from a 4/10 in my favorablity in Dev Companies but hey it puts you 5 points ahead of EA, lol.
i gotta say i like what i see here thumbs up for this hex system.
Amazing. finally Defending outposts/facilities will be Possible. AMAZING
i really dont like this, it will take alot of the strategy part out of the game, it will make the game very linear and it will reduce the influence of each individual player , why dont just delete the entire map and only leave 1 facility and just throw everyone in there, if u want a big fight.
but i guess i'll have to try it first.
While this is in progress could we discuss defending and attacking rewards ?
While we get a passive cert gain for anything we do in a friendly territory it just is not attracting defenders .
I would suggest making defending clearly and obviously equal in rewards to encourage team play .
Currently attacking :
Take out turrets =xp
spawn points =xp
Take out defenders = xp (but generally not much since next to no one defends .)
flip capture point =xp
Man capture point to flip base = Big flashing sign massive lump xp and a voice telling you that you are awesome .
All leading to cert gain and purchasing power.
repairing the above = xp +15% (that is not obvious to any player especially new players )
You are missing the action and all the xp benefits of attacking .
With the obvious fourth faction cert gain = purchasing power = more cool stuff.
So defending needs to be equal in reward and not a punishment .
The text colour tool stopped working .
Take away turrets and defences as default .
Allow Turrets to be placed and constructed by players from a central area in the base .
Give the choice of type of turret to be placed .
offer more tools to defend like barriers to place wall to build extra resource building generators wall generators that strengthen the defences you have built .
Give varied xp for the building and placing of strategic defenses .
make them cost resources so that encourages constructing resource generators that anyone in the proximity gains faster resources to enable building a defence in that area .
Generally just give players in bases building tools that give equal rewards to attacking a base .
Hopefully this would mean there would be a fight at any base you go to and the players that have helped build the defences will fight harder to protect .
I don't disagree with this but ultimately the maps are too small for a hex. If the maps were as big as those of panzer general it'd work. It's the same fallacy CiV run into. You need the scale to support 6 connections.
Separate names with a comma.