The state of PS2 and what I feel must change.

Yes they pose little threat in themselves .. but how many people camp a spawn room ? Seriously Ive been alone in a spawn room and camped by 10 people, 2 tanks and a Lib ... Those are all things that are not watching for counter attacks from outside the base ...

Was I a threat ? No
Did I make the counter attack easier ? Yes

Because forces were tied up watching the spawn room since they have no idea how many people it contains ..

Removing that " distraction " just makes it easier for the attackers .. Want to capture a base ? Then it should be earned 100% until the final base flip

I apologise, there's 16 pages of replies which I can't read so I'm sure I'm going to repeat some points.

Before I get into quoting you I want to address one of the biggest problems I see in casual vs organised force and this is the hopeless state of the in-game comm-tools. Outfits can stand on their own like any legion/guild/corporation in any game. They have their own dedicated teamspeak/mumble servers and protocols for member usage. Casual players, however, must rely on either /region chat which is hopelessly broken or the in-game VOIP, which is also hopelessly broken. Additionally many people simply refuse to use in-game VOIP for all the obvious reasons (idiots, blaring music, etc etc etc). So even in the 21st century we're stilling gravitating to typed chat.

SOE need to devote whatever effort is necessary to fixing region-chat. It means if you have a bunch of casual defenders at a spot then someone can step up and take charge with having to use /yell. They won't be as organised as an outfit but at least they will be a credible defense rather than randoms involved in individual gunfights and being flanked.

They should then also create a new channel called /Intel that is continent wide and non-spammable. This is so people can give credible intel to their faction on enemy troop movements without being used as a game-wide chat channel. Limit posting to once per 2-5 minutes or similar.

Now on to your points

I see what you are trying to accomplish and I agree with it in general but the problem is SCUs are currently set up with the existing base design in mind. If you did this you would need to recreate the same layered defense that Amp stations have in tech plants and biolabs, ie: destroy gens, drop main shields, destroy SCU gen, destroy SCU. Otherwise techs and bios would be too susceptible to lightning strikes that end the battle in seconds by taking out the SCU (tech plants especially are way too porous). All you would need to do is put 2 shield gen buildings at ground level near-ish to the bottom vehicle spawn point at biolabs (would also mean fighting underneath the biolab actually means something) and plug those 2 little back doors and the lift shaft in tech labs with the same anti-infantry fields as protect the main hangar.

You need to modify this to allow players to respawn at the nearest place that spawns tanks (planes aren't such an issue given how fast they cross the map). Otherwise, if the only place I can spawn is a tiny base with only Flashs and Sunderers available, now I have to spawn a Flash and drive madly back to wherever I can pull a tank, then drive all the way back to a place long since conquered. If the enemy is assaulting my base with 10 tanks I have little hope of pushing him out with no armour of my own. Not a big problem for the primary fortresses because their satellites can spawn tanks but it would create a problem for Towers and smaller bases.

I don't think most small bases have the physical geography to allow for this. Enemy units arrive, SCU instantly cut off and attacked, 20 seconds later base effectively falls. You might say this is no different to the current capture point mechanic but in essence its worse, there is even less time to fight back or hope more people arrive to help. I would leave smaller bases as is and leave your SCU solution to the major bases (I am not sure it is even a good idea for Towers, I think Tower fights are actually now optimal for their size).

I don't think this is a big issue. I think the 6/6 system has limited current purpose but it could be reworked rather than removed. There is something to be said on a tactical level of finishing a base off quicker if you hold 4 of 4 points or drawing it out if the defenders can hold onto 2 of 4. Multiple capture points in biolabs and at places like Crossroads make for some excellent fights. You make no suggestion how multiple capture points would work and there doesn't seem to be a compelling argument to remove it, (surrounding hex influence I can understand).

Instant action - Agree.

Indar & the Crown

I think you really need to acknowledge WHY we are stuck Indar. It's because it offers 2 things, 1 the Crown (I'll come back to this) and 2 the map allows for that player tactics and strategy you are talking about. Esamir is also a mess; zero cover for vehicles, air or infantry and no landmarks make it like a naval battle, whoever has the longest range most powerful guns and largest numbers wins. Fights are just brute force, no room for tricky maneuvering outside the bases.

Amerish is almost OK but a bit too directed due to being so impassable to ground vehicles, it funnels fighting a bit TOO much, there are flat fights or no fights. Because of this funnelling I think Amerish as it stands is TOO much a large outfit continent, it doesn't easily allow for random skirmishes. If they could work in some more "mountain passes" and made it less funnelled it would become better than Indar. Its also very non-intuitive in its direction so newbies try it, spend a lot of time getting blocked by terrain, dislike it and leave.

I think your point about the small edge hexes is valid but I think that would be solved by your suggestion later in the resource section rather than removing them. If the Spec Ops camp is where they make Proximity Mines then all of a sudden having prox mines cost 1/2 as much means yes I am very much fighting there.

Back to the Crown. The reason the Crown is successful and so many other spots on Indar aren't comes down to 1 reason, its built on a hill. Compare that to Crossroads and SOOOOOO many other bases which are all built in gullies with large rolling hills surrounding them. The recent changes to Towers abated the problem a little but only a little. You can still barely venture beyond the walls because the attackers have an insurmountable fire position advantage. Look around the real world, how many castles do you see built in valleys compared to on hilltops. Its not just fire its also visibility, you can see for miles around the Crown and prepare for incoming attacks. The entire topology/placement of bases is broken in Indar. However the solution is not less Crowns, the solution is more of them, but not as extreme and every Tower in the game should be moved to the nearest convenient hilltop to its current location.

Yes the Crown is too defensible, it needs to change hands more but not be a walkover, it got a few good tweaks but it needs a few more. Rather than the SCU idea which I think is too easy to lightning strike I think all three main approaches (North, East, South) need to be given more cover, especially right up close to the top where it is too barren and open. The north pass needs to also be reworked to be more like the south, winding but accessible to vehicles).

This. I hate the lattice. It has no place in a modern FPS. We want freedom - to be able to flank, take bases on either side, go a different direction etc.

First, let me confess that I did not read this whole thread though. It is 18 pages and I made it through about half - lots of good discussion here.

Second, I fully support everything Buzz said in his main post. Even though I have some issues with you in game and how your members treat others this is a good post.

Third, I am seeing a bunch of issues with the pain fields suggestion Buzz made - I want to remind people that we have to design solutions for the "common" player (who isn't too smart) and that pain fields are a easy way to tell them to get out.

Fourth, I want to emphasize how important making resources matter are to these issues as well. Although it is a issue that warrants its own thread and discussion, making things revolve around resources is very important and I want to make sure it is highlighted.


I really hope the devs are taking stock of this...the issues presented here are those of the whole community imo.
The main post of this thread should be the first thing Higby reads on Monday.

Agree completely.

You can actually just look inside, the poeple who camp inside the spawn room usually just stand around, at the door, trying to get cheap kills. It should be that every base is earned to the last defender is killed, let the shields drop or the pain field set in. Once the defenders are dead they should set up shop in the nearest base, preparing for the next incoming attack, thus promoting the "flow" of battle. These scenarios where the campeese are camping the defenders are really, really boring. I don't care what "effectiveness" you believe they serve. It's just a weird stalemate situation, that seems to be an uncalculated result of poor capture mechanics.

And with regards to your personal experience, no offence but those people would probably have sat around there regardless of you being in there or not.

As a side note, the restrictions on where you can spawn after you lose a surtain base will also help the flow of battle, as stated from the OP. If people have less choices, from where to spawn, they will atuomaticly create a more interesting push/pull effect, when the next battle starts. Insted of spreading everysingle defender to random locations around the map.

Endorse

Good post and agree completely. Good to see some counter-arguments being put up instead of just 'I love Buzz' posts.

Indeed, Corridor fight. That's the term I was looking for.

One giant Zerg v. Zerg v. Zerg Corridor fight.

tl;dr man, srsly. YOLO!

I read most of your post. I agree with a lot of it, I do think it's too little too late. I agree with you on the Indarside, Mergers, and Lattice system the most. I think resources are one of the biggest issues, and have thought this way, that needs to be addressed ASAP. Resource changes will either be completely irrelevant or they'll change the balance of the game far too much to the point that many aspects will need re-balanced.
Unfortunately one of the things I think you left out is population balance. It's undeniable that one faction has taken a significant population plunge since GU02 and I think it's directly effecting the way the game is playing. PS2 is meant to be a three sided tug-of-war style game, and it hasn't been this since release. Early on, NC had population issues until players realized their guns were superior once certed out and played with. Now, VS has population issues but no one wants to attribute it to the weapons this time. So the question, for me, is why does the VS have population issues? More importantly, what's the plans to make it so all three factions have close to the same populations across the server. Right now most servers are a two sided war, with the third faction scroaching empty bases. I think the lattice system could help this, as well as just more population in general(mergers). I hope something changes, because it seems that the population differences get worse each weekend not better.

If the issue is population balance, forcing the game into a three way corridor fight is not going to benefit the gameplay of a significantly smaller fraction.

Battle flow? What battle flow, there's as much battle flow as Metro in BF3 is.

Another good post.

This.

Another good post. I think Lord Monando talks more sense than Buzz tbh. Hopefully the devs will look at his stuff as well.

THIS MAN SPEAKS THE TRUTH EMBRACE HIM

I agree with pretty much everything Buzz has said.

I hope they seriously consider some of these ideas, and address the issues raised. I've waited a long time for a sequel to PS1 and I would hate to see it fail.

The most important issues for me are low population which should be resolved by merges and not transfer tokens, need for a lattice system, and the camping of spawn rooms (by attackers and defenders).

Another good post from Mondano. He gets my vote, tbh.

I disagree. A three way corridor fight is a lot more interesting with lopsided numbers than an open field fight. Why do you think when you're outnumbered by your opponent you retreat to the nearest choke point?

Generally agree with this in total but have a question. By cloaking bubble do you mean actual invisibility like an infiltrator or just radar? Full cloaking could lead to so many other problems. Radar I agree with, also potentially a heat dampening effect in a small radius to IR sights because they make it so easy to spot a sunderer from the air but not full invisibility. Camouflage on a stationary object is actually quite effective in this game and would encourage people to paint their sunderers for the occasion.

Generally I agree with all these except I have a different opinion on Flak armour. Yes I agree about the pigeon holing but I think the problem is not so much with Flak itself as the fact that the other Certs are so weak. I think the others need to be more viable choices rather than just giving everyone flak. I don't think its as big a problem as you do that people die to one hit from grenades/missiles etc. Grenades are finite, don't stand in front of tanks etc etc.

We all know the problem with Nanoweave because of the way bullet damage was designed, Shield Capacitor is useless for the reasons you outlined, 8 seconds is barely better than 10. These other certs should all be beefed up so they are much more viable (eg L2-4 of nanoweave actually doing something etc etc) and then this would make for some interesting tactical choices, your HA might go Flak, your infi might go shield or nano etc, would give some variety.

I think the problem with turrets is essentially not the turret itself but server population. In a large base defense there simply aren't enough people to adequately man the turrets. In those few rare occasions there are, then the turrets become very effective (like a huge fight we had at Howling Pass last night).

If you want auto-targeting turrets I would suggest they come with some built in limits such as slow acquisition time or slow turning speed so scout vehicles can still speed by without being chewed up. As for manned turrets, agree, they need to be slightly beefed up.

In regards to the benefits of holding a main base I absolutely agree, your suggestions are excellent. 2 of the benefits mean zero and the last benefit is too defining. A losing side also loses to much ability to fight back when it also loses MBT spawning.

Your Skydock idea is excellent and should be spread about, Base X makes anti-tank mines (50% off), Base Y makes C4 (50% off) etc etc.

I never played PS1 so I really have no reference point for the lattice system. My only concern, which I am sure could be answered is does the lattice system cripple smaller skirmishes and turn the game into mega-Outfit vs mega-Outfit?