Some things that have occurred to me while playing the game. Suggestions.

To start out. I’ve been a life long fan of Planetside. I first played the original and fell in love with the concept. When it comes to MMOFPS there is no contest this is the best. I recently (due to the whole Coronavirus stuff) picked you PS2 from Steam and have been playing non-stop for several weeks. My first full scale offensive between Quartz Ridge Camp through the Lowland Trading Post got me hooked on PS2. That being said I am newer. Another couple of things to take into consideration with my suggestions is that I play exclusively NC and I almost always play either Engineer or Infiltrator. Seldom have I played any other class and never have I been in another faction. I’m posting this to see what you all think about certain things that have occurred to me during my time in game. I have listened to a lot of people pick out some things that could be changed and it got me thinking.

1. Gameplay and battle flow
I’ve heard a lot of people on YouTube point out that after the initial control point capture during an assault the “battle” devolves into a Zerg rush to the spawn point. A lot of this I think has to do with the fact that the base maps are static. They don’t change. You know where a the control spawn points are going to be after your 6th time so it’s just a matter of putting enough players through the base fast enough. My remedy for this is simple. No more static spawn points and base layouts. Beyond the initial warp gate there should be no predetermined spawn points. The control points should remain on the map with no base structures covering them. The devs have already put in a construction system into the game. Why not expand on this concept and allow the factions to build fortifications to protect control points from scratch? Every class should have some basic construction schematics but then each class should have unique constructs. For example and engineer should have constructs specifically applicable to vehicles and such. Medics should be the only ones that can put spawn points down in bases along with heath related structures. If the placement of spawn points were decided by a team mate it would encourage team planning and make Zerg rushes harder to coordinate. You would have to know where the spawn is. This would also encourage some back map gameplay. After the initial push from border territories you would have to have a defense network set up if enemies are coming into your territories or else you would lose all of them quickly.

2. Further specialize factions’ classes, weapons and vehicles
To an extent this is kind of already done for weapons and by extension classes. I think it should go further. I feel that as a NC soldier SMG infiltrator builds should be our bread and butter. We’re along the lines of a traditional private military company and so it would make sense that our infiltrators would be armed and trained more along the lines of hit and run guerrillas and ambushers where as the TR should have the better scouts and snipers and the VS should specialize in the spies and saboteurs. To an extent this is the case anyway but I think for example you should get rid of or limit the sniper options for NC but give them easier access to more robust SMG options such as SMGs that do a little damage to armor or that have extended damage ranges (75-100m). Maybe give VS a bigger variety of side arms and TR should have the most sniper option including anti-material rifles. This should be how all classes are done. Figure out what the three main strategies for a class are and split that up between the factions. I do think every player should have the opportunity play their class fully but each faction should specialize in a specific strategy. I think vehicles should also be different depending on the factions’ play styles or maybe just one faction specific vehicle. For example maybe VS could have a vehicle that pulls power from their harvester vehicles to deliver devastating blasts of energy. The TR needs a vehicle that can lay mines and booby traps over an extended area. NC could have the only harvester type vehicle capable of mounting weapons or just more powerful one on one combat vehicles.

3. Expand the roles of outfit, platoon, squad and fire team leaders
I think allowing outfit or platoon leaders to reward players with weapons and equipment for specific loadouts adds to the team play dynamic. Allow me to illustrate. We’ve all been part of a platoon who seems to be in two places at once and wholly uncoordinated in its operation. In fact this is often the case. It makes me wonder what the point of the system is all together. If every one is supposed to be a specialist but they don’t work together what’s the point of the class system anyway? Now everyone should be able to create the characters they want. That’s not debatable BUT wouldn’t you like to be rewarded for being a good medic and being one of the main reasons your outfit captured a territory? Even just staying with your squad goes unrewarded. I feel that if I knew there was a possibility of getting a weapon for my class y just showing up then I would always coordinate with my squad instead of just jumping into a random battle. It would serve a dual purpose though. You, as an outfit leader specialize your outfit mates for specific roles and functions. I think you should be able to spend resources from captured territories to arm your outfit. This would allow outfits to specialize in certain classes and vehicles. It would be like a, “We need some good scouts lets see if anyone from ‘Outfit X’ is on.” situation. Another thing that I would do for leaders is to create more map waypoint and allow multiples of the same type. Instead of one attack and defense way point why not expand them to waypoints such as “provide cover fire from here”, “skirmish in this territory” and “scout here”. If you’re a platoon leader who is in charge of four squads and four fire teams under them why are you limited to only two waypoints? I know you could use chat but what about squad mates who have their sound off or are listening to music irl? Lastly specific waypoints should be bound to specific key binding and upon a key press the selected waypoint is placed at your location. That way you don’t have to stop the action, look at the map and so you can change plans on the fly.

4. Specialize vehicles.
Everyone should be able to spawn vehicles. Not everyone should be able to spawn lightnings, mag riders and all of that at any time. In fact the only classes that should be able to spawn them are engineers and heavy assaults. As an infiltrator I think I should only be limited to flashes and harassers. Those are the only two vehicles that fit in with the over arching strategy of the infiltrators. Flashes allow me to slip behind enemy lines quickly and harassers are useable for hit and run tactics which if you’ve played as an infiltrator long enough you kinda learn that, that’s sort of your thing. I think only engineers should have access to the full vehicle roster of your faction. Everyone else should only be able to pull one or two vehicles related to their class’ roles. This would stop a lot of the back and forth tank and harasser exclusive combat that happens on the wide open maps like indar and open up more long range guerrilla style infantry engagements. A la snipers, long range light assaults and defensive heavy assault loadouts to hold strategic points. It would also make people actually fill up all of the seats in vehicles as well instead of just having one dimwit in a harasser with no gunner trying to run over the only dimwit on the map that decided to walk to the next objective. Let’s say that you’re an infiltrator and for whatever reason you really really want a tank for your vehicle of choice. You should be able to buy them with DB points only. Idk that seems logical to me. Daybreak could make money off of that.

Those are my observation whilst playing. I realize that a lot of these are not economical, for example limiting vehicle choice would most likely cost Daybreak Games cash from vehicle cosmetics and limiting weapon choice would loss the income from weapon attachments purchases. I’m sure there’s ways of recouping that cost though with some of the stuff I’ve suggested. I would maybe make certain base constructs either cost money and/or make them cosmetically editable with DB points so as to offset the loss. I’m interested in hearing what you all think about these ideas. Please point out any thing you agree and disagree with. Anyway, I’ll see you all... Planetside.

Ohh yeah. Also on the subject of weapons. I think they should take the bazookas away from heavy assaults and give them to the engineers in exchange for the turrets which really should be a tool. I would then turn the caltrops, hard light canopys and ordinance dampeners into abilities for the engineers’ ability slot. Essentially the heavies should get every close quarters weapon to kill people at close ranges and engineers should deal almost exclusively with vehicles and base constructs. Lastly I would give the engineers a choice between being a repair, resuppply or anti-armor engineer and make them chose between the repair tool, bazookas or ammo packs.

It sounds certainly interesting, but there are a few important factors to consider:
1) For the devs this would be a lot or effort reworking existing material. Warning signs of a "no-no", usually.
2) This may seriously affect the faction balance, both within a faction and between all of them.
3) May create problems when people like and play a specific faction but suddenly their preferred playstyle is somewhere else and they can no longer have it.
4) Completely take away a subrole (like you laid out as an example with Infils) - leaning into the previous points - would likely turn into a nightmare, but it would work giving more and better tools of the faction style and less options for the off-faction style (for NC Infils only 1-2 sniper rifles and a single pistol, but 5 SMGs to choose from).

1, this would be a massive change to a game with a player base who've know it to be the way it is for nearly 8 years now. While what you are suggesting could have been interesting if done from the start, I don't know that this big of a change this late would be smart from the devs. I agree that there is untapped potential with the construction game, and would love it if some of the old bases that got removed entirely would be reintroduce as one minute buildables, like Lowland Trading Post. As for the static bases getting pinned quickly, some of them have enough ways out they can't all be effectively covered, others could use more teleporter spawn rooms. I think that's about as big a change as you could realistically sell.

2, again, fully agree, unfortunately also unlikely. Much of what has been added to the game has been symmetrical. Harassers, valkaries, colossi, bastions, hell even the bloody NSOs that almost nobody kept using once the novelty wore off. I think it's a matter of effort required to balance, if everyone has the same kit, it's balanced. Getting distinctly different equipment to be balanced takes hours of work that people expect to be paid for. Really too bad, I think more asymmetry would give the game more draw. So, I fully agree, but won't hold my breath.

3, they're trying on this, there have been additions recently, but more are needed.

4, I'm just going to disagree on this, what infantry class you are playing as should not affect what vehicle you can pull. It already impacts whether or not it is a good idea, so why add extra mechanics?

This dead forum is filled with at least 5 years of suggestions. Multiple threads just like this one here from its customer base and DBG just ignores it.

Save yourself some time and go over to "Twatter". The DEV's only use the toilet licking Network anymore.

o7