They should have never removed HIVEs and VP system

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Okjoek, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:20 PM.

  1. Okjoek

    Right now on Emerald as I type Amerish VS has 27% pop right now, NC and TR are 34-37% pop. Alert is going, no other continents are open to play on.

    Why do people this this is fun and good for the game? There's only one path to victory currently and that's orchestrating point holds and backcaps and VS does not have the pop to do it right now. All we can do is try to be the king-maker and decide which enemy faction we want to screw over. Not having HIVEs forces the underpop faction to fight in hopeless battles we will just get farmed at and offers no other paths to victory.

    HIVEs were given a bad rep because of people who built in exploit-y places like that pit on the cliff between Howling pass And Rashnu Tower. HIVEs also had a stupid way of determining efficiency that could be abused to reach 50+% efficiency in places near the warpgate. Keep in mind that structures are now at the mercy of the average armor zerg and skywalls are nothing more than air deterrents which already fixes a lot of those exploit-y spots and then all you have to do is find another way of measuring HIVE efficiency.

    Perhaps HIVEs should only activate in a HEX controlled by the enemy and efficiency is tied into the spawn units of the nearby facility so the more the enemies spawn there will cause HIVE efficiency to ramp up. This way there will be no HIVEs by friendly warpgates and the content would work more in harmony with the lattice fights.

    The only other ideas I could think of would be some kind of power-hungry region-visible module that negates nearby capture points from flipping, but drains exponentially more cortium the more people are trying to flip control of the point.

    I really wish people would see that construction and the Real-Time-Strategy aspect of this game is what keeps it alive in this niche rather than solely catering to the battlefield FPS aspect which this game would never compete in because those games are better in every way at those things. If there's nothing to do in this game than point hold at lattice bases, farm KD and be a headshot meathead, it'd rather just stop playing.
    • Up x 4
  2. LordKrelas

    If your unpop faction can win the map, while having No land control at all, when that entire Victory is about control of the Map..
    Since you built a Hive, near enemies, whom in your own description, if they spawn to attack or defend, grants the Hive Builders, exactly what they wanted, and it can't be avoided.

    One of the main issues of Hives, were the Nature of their points.
    You take a Hive, you put it somewhere, Any progress is impossible to Counter, Any points impossible to lose.
    The value of a Hive is literally infinite, and grows over time.
    Any Lattice-point VP, requires an increasing amount of land control;
    Any Hive Point requires Nothing of the sort, and does not ever expand.

    The most PITA of the Hive, was VS on Connery, Having no territory, reaching 10-15 VP, a process you can't stop.
    And then they zerged out, gaining the last points, since the Lattide Points gained are quick when you have 0 Land.

    Hives turn All Lattice-Control into a Waste of time.
    Hives are more effective than taking 3-10 Territories for the same of points.
    Hive points can not be lost, Ever.
    Attacking a Hive, does not stop progress, nor undo it; If it did, An Air zerg, would make any such Hive useless.
    As they've be roaming the map, nuking Hives apart.

    --

    Now for Hives Negating Capture.
    Put Hive in a Hex, now to capture it, the Enemy has to manage to destroy & block Hive construction across the entire hex, during the entire capture timer.
    Unless you have a severe over-pop advantage, or mass Air, you are not managing to prevent Hive construction while securing that base -- An exception is, if You just spawn-camped the hell out of it, while Air ravages the entire Hex.

    Smaller Population? You aren't securing an entire hex, for the Capture Timer, while securing the Points.
    No bloody way, as 1 single sod out there, is all it takes to deploy a Hive.
    If there's 7, They can deny every single lattice-Lane, If the original count\control system;
    Whomever have them, can deny their entire set of lanes. As they can gather 7 Entire Hives, locking of their entire warpgate.
    This means, unless you engage numerous PMB's, you will not ever be able to make progress.


    Construction, Keeping PS2 alive.
    What a notion.
    I wasn't aware, that trying to force the major population into one-sided meat-grinders of automated defense-systems, is what keeps people here, over PvP action.
    As facing construction;
    You blast into an Automated Defense-Grid of self-repairing turrets & solid walls, if lucky, there's an actual Player also there.
    Sure, it's more engaging for the select Builder population, than repeatedly nailing head-shots, But for anyone engaging PMB's, it's never been anything but a massive grind-wall..
    The original Hives; Endless grind into Automated self-repairing Bases, or lose the ability to Play.
    For Builders; Everyone was forced into a Cert-grind Pit for your benefit.

    Go figure.
  3. Okjoek

    I still maintain that construction in the OP way it was implemented before is preferable to what we have now where we either have to go all 4th-faction to join the faction capable of winning the pop struggle that is the lattice territory control system.

    The repair module is weak now. repair sundies don't repair turrets anymore. Turrets don't have nearly the effective range they used to. The walls take damage from any kind of non-small arms weapon. They are incredibly easy to break through and into today.

    The VP HIVEs generated should have been able to be lost and it should have been in a way that has the active HIVEs competing amongst eachother for a set number of available VPs.

    Okay so if you're right my idea for determining HIVE efficiency wouldn't work out, fair enough.


    Given what I said above about setting a hard cap and contest system for the VPs a HIVE can generate I don't think it's unreasonable to have what defensive force multipliers construction still has left be able to play a part in a more dynamic system of continent locking (that is the VP system) than we have today.

    Come to think of it, the aerial anomaly would have also fit into the VP system really well.
    • Up x 2
  4. karlooo

    The normal fps gameplay can be fun, but only if you get a tactical and reasonable leader, which rarely happens.
    Without the good leader the game becomes an every man for himself, scattered mess....very bad for this game, this type of gameplay repels people from staying.
    It is true that this game is only good and popular for it's Real-Time-Strategy and open world, and the devs should have been focusing more on this.
    • Up x 1
  5. strikearrow

    It does need a rework because right now PMBs are just used for OS, routers, maybe a flail, and a place for aircraft raiders to run and hide. They need to be more useful - perhaps instead of the HIVEs adding points over time, they should simply count as a captured base and be limited to maybe 15 HIVEs per map so once 15 HIVEs are on the map no new HIVEs count until one is destroyed and then the oldest inactive HIVE becomes active.
  6. adamts01

    VS only dominated the Hive game because everyone else hated it so much that they'd rather lose the continent than take part in hives. DB was right to remove a mechanic with so much detest. If PMBs were made fun, the the over-pop factions would be able to dominate that area as well. The real issue is faction pop disparity, combined with cycle of double teaming one faction then the next.
    • Up x 1
  7. Okjoek

    They could probably start by either lowering respawn time on the router or making it invisible on the map. I think having both of those traits makes it more useless than it needs to be.
  8. OgreMarkX

    Putting Hive's and VP system in place was one of THE WORST design decisions I've ever seen in a game.

    Removing them was long overdue and was one of THE BEST design decisions I've ever seen in a game.

    The Hive and VP system ran COUNTER to core gameplay and took away incentive to play the game. It was mind-boggling bad. It was so bad it went full cirlce and approached genius level.They managed to bring almost all bad decisions together to create that system.

    Hive/VP system was to Planetside 2 what William Hung was to American Idol--so bad that you just had to tune in until you couldn't take it anymore--you weren't sure if it was serious or if you were being punked. Something this bad can't be serious can it? A mystery trapped within a conundrum and hidden within a dilemma and buried within an ancient pyramid located on the ocean floor at the center of the Bermuda Triangle.
    • Up x 1
  9. LordKrelas

    If you wanted to kill & engage actual players, you had to go Fight in a remote hell-hole against invulnerable walls, self-repairing automatic all-seeing-eye Turrets, with barely an actual enemy player.
    If you did not; The entire map locked, forcing you into a Que again.
    If you did; You spent nanites, and endless time, with very little EXP gain & very little actual action, mostly against solid buildings.

    In a game of territory control, having Hives able to be equal to owning an infinite amount of land, that unlike everything else, did not require increasing work to get any progress..
    Meant hives, were not able to just be used by people with no assets to defend, they also were better than any other option on the entire map.
    A faction with no land control at all, has the easiest & best time, with Hives; Which easily dominated the course of the map.
    The sides that actually had to attack & defend increasing amounts of land control, IE more work, got less Results than someone AFK on a cliff with a Hive.

    A Hive is Passive Generation of VP, without any need to control or defend any amount of territory outside the meters of wall.
    Everything else, that had VP was an actual & temporary gain, for active endless work.
    Lattice work is Entire Hexes of land to travel & defend.
    Hives were meters of land inside a wall, without the outside being voided of value; You never had to act, to get progress.

    Hives also boosted EXP gain of actions that supported the Hive Builders & Suppliers.
    So resupplying Hives, with Cort was an enhanced EXP gain, without any player interaction at all needed, and this action was boosted.

    Mean-while outside of Construction, every VP needs player interaction, and is a two-sided engagement.
    There is no automated anything in the Lattice.

    The Original Repair Module, made walls invulnerable, and everything else need mass firepower to do anything about.
    And was commonly jammed inside a structure it made invulnerable.
    Today, they are reduced, as gods knows why, to this level, but at least it's not as easy to jam a Base into an Invulnerable barrier.
    While it should be more effective, it shouldn't make entire solid buildings invulnerable; Which also mind you, Any attacker got 0 EXP for doing anything but completely destroying it, and a small amount for that.
    Repairing said wall, is a constant stream, in comparison.

    A Sunderer inside a PMB, now that I can't see why it shouldn't repair -- However, when tied with self-repair, that would stack.
    Still, not worth much, but likely their intention.

    Automated Turrets lost their range, as People would build entire fire bases on Mountains, entirely automated that would snipe people & tanks easily.
    And the AI was all-seeing 360-degrees of vision for their full actual firing range -- and the damn thing didn't miss much.

    Considering that present PMB's, have:
    Pain-Fields, Artillery-Cannons (multiple types), every known possible means to defend itself, supply itself, spawn vehicles, aircraft or infantry, from even across the entire map, detect any enemy in the hex.
    And can fire an entire orbital cannon clearing out anyone & anything in the open in one-shot, at any nearby lattice-base.

    Can you question, why after PMB's, being Invulnerable-walled Self-repairing Entirely-Automated-Defense bases,
    Lost a grand deal of their direct "Iron Wall" counter-measure to being attacked, when If you don't engage them, they'll nuke an entire base.
    A bit much was lost, however, It's an absolute hellish bore to shoot at Turrets, walls, turrets, modules, in a PvP game, for hours.
    It is not an enjoyable act, to barely get any EXP at all, for something with several thousand health, was built in seconds, and gave the builder 2 sources of EXP in the process, let alone if they repaired it - on top of any automated systems engaging.
    It's as fun as combating a ghost-cap.
    ----

    If the VP limiter isn't half the score, it would work in that principle.
    As if it is half; Someone will let themselves be warp-gated, freeing them from any split or division of force, allowing an easy zerg, to cap the nearby bases around the warpgate for a rapid 5-10 points.

    And of course, Any air-zerg (Was common from VS on Connery), will void any PMB that lives, quite easily.
    Air is rarely massed, as most seem to be lone-wolves, which is a mixed-blessing.


    The number of times, I've seen someone build a PMB, and expect others to be forced, or discouraged from not attacking it is absurd.
    If it was the inverse; You'd see Air-squads farming every Ant for miles, while Lattice Bases' Painfields expanded across the hex, with Automated-Sniper Nests around every corner - Being amazed, no one dares enter their field of fire.
  10. Demigan

    It was a hellish system. Allowing 5 to 30 people to gain more for the continent capture than the combined work of almost 300 players on your faction on the continent? That's just bad design.

    Pmb's and HIVE's also encouraged to build as far away in as harsh places as possible, with the intent of avoiding battle rather than encouraging it. Bad design.

    Continents werent build for vp's. Take the top left warpgate on Esamir, it still is the easiest to connect and the hardest to fight from. It still practically means a loss if your faction starts there.

    The current system is miles better. Is it GOOD? No, not particularily, but it has fewer flaws and frustrating screw you mechanics.


    If PMB's are to come back as important part of the continent cap mechanics they need to change:
    Faster build time when out of combat. Should be set up in minutes so less power can be expected from the time investment.
    Build in places that encourages combat. Smack-dab on the middle of a road between 2 bases should be strived for by the builder rather than as far away from civilization as possible. For example by increasing efficiency or giving automatic cortium gain if you buils near a lattice line (and opening up possibilities to build there).
    Pmb's to encourage players to both attack and defend it, with less reliance on automated defenses. Also a more even battle by introducing siege equipment.
    Vp's to be earned in a way that the continent layout has little effect on the earnings, for example by using the current territory control.
  11. strikearrow

    I thought a bit about this and I think I have a plan.

    Player made base (PMB) victory points (VP) would return, except they would give a fixed number of continent locking VP points (just like normal bases) and the points could be stolen by capturing the PMB - not destroying it.

    A PMB would become worth VP once the silo owner, and only the silo owner, placed a capture point (a new item, but with the deploy characteristics of a router) in the base. Until the silo owner did so, the PMB would act the same as current PMBs.

    However, after placing the capture point, PMB construction characteristics of all factions' within 1000m of the capture point would drastically change in the following ways.

    1. All automated turret fire control modules would both self-destruct and be undeployable.
    2. Turrets, flails, OS, and other "offensive" items would now be hack-able by infiltrators.
    3. Destroyed turrets, modules and structures could be repaired within 15mins of their destruction. During that time, the items would continue to block new construction as if they still stood, but be unhack-able.
    4. When the base flipped because the capture point was held for 3-4mins., then all construction, including destroyed repairable items, would also flip sides and the silo would be completely unlocked for the capturing faction.
    5. The capture point would be indestructible for 30 mins after the silo is destroyed. Of course for 15mins. after the silo is destroyed, it can be repaired to restart the 30min. timer.
    6. No new enemy faction construction could be placed. However, I am not totally convinced this is a good idea. The goal is to prevent the battle from becoming too slow and developing into a siege.

    The VPs would continue to count even after the base was by-passed in the lattice base system. I would limited the number of such VPs available to about 9-15 depending on the continent and obviously no two points could be within 1000m of each other.
  12. Okjoek


    So what if one team has those 300 players to lock a continent and the other team only has lets say 260. How are we supposed to make the game not pointless for the underpop faction? In my eyes construction gave me a path to victory when the population struggle was hopeless. It needs to still be able to do that even if it's just on a single lane.

    Like even if VPs + HIVEs stay gone forever and all the walls and turrets remain nerfed I'd still like to see something to make construction more relevant. Something where I can have more influence over the hex or region that my squad builds in.

    Currently the only actual things to do with construction are:

    OS,
    Flail,
    Router,
    Vehicle spawn/resupply

    The first two are just for kill farming and you need a lot of things falling into place for it to have an actual effect on the win/loss of a base fight with the OS. The flail just feels gimped by NDZs all over the map. I mean it only has 600m range and it gives off a bright smoke and map icon. NDZs are one of the WORST pieces of lazy level-design in this game. If the flail would have been too OP the way it is they could simply nerf the range to 500 or even 400m. Maybe create a sunderer ability that creates a mini-skywall designed to shield from air and artillery?

    The router isn't good enough in its current iteration either. I don't see why it needs to have both the trait of showing on the minimap and taking double the time to respawn at the same time. Personally between the two I'd rather the map icon be removed so it acts more like a proximity stealth spawn. As for vehicle spawning I mostly use it for transporting routers. I don't usually have a problem with nanites and light vehicles. The ASP system makes vehicle spawning much nicer for veteran players.

    What utility can a construction crew be given to make 12 people seem more like 24 in a lattice base fight?
    • Up x 1
  13. OgreMarkX

    The problem with construction from day one is that DBG failed to understand that everything you do to a game must SUPPORT, FIX, or ENHANCE, CORE GAMEPLAY.

    Instead they implemented a sub game with the game--and left it that way for far too long. The no deploy zones INSURED construction would always remain that way.

    Construction needs to integrate with CORE GAMEPLAY, which is fighting for bases to conquer territory.

    Add in how time and NON GAMEPLAY intensive making and maintaining PMBs are... Well, we get to here.
  14. Blam320

    I beg to differ, OP. The HIVE and VP system needed to go. The game became centered around leaving HIVES in the middle of friendly territory close to the warpgate, where they could run uncontested, farming free certs and VP until the continent locked or someone decided to try and pop it with a galaxy drop. It completely destroyed tactical gameplay, as factions could let themselves get warpgated and still win the continent, in theory.
  15. strikearrow

    So you think the no deploy zones were a bad idea or do you think they were just poorly placed?

    I do agree that PMBs take too long to build. Perhaps remove the need to mine cortium? However, I think maintaining them should be required as I dislike automated turrets. Still the reason for maintaining them needs to be better. I delineated a rough plan above.
  16. strikearrow

    True and it needed to change, but I think gal drops are tactical game play as opposed to just zerging down a lattice line, which is decidedly not tactical game play.
  17. karlooo

    I would love it if the devs did something, there are many things that can greatly help the game: redesign bases, the map, construction, vehicle warfare, game rules.
    I don't get it...their team is also pretty large. What do they do everyday in work lol?
    I'm starting to think that the artists do the most work...look at all the cosmetics :)
  18. OgreMarkX

    Guys, Planetside 2's competitive advantage in the market is MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER COMBAT (aka CORE GAMEPLAY).

    Matt Higby didn't realize that when he kept pushing MLG small squad Twitch marketing in PS2's early years. A lot of time and money was wasted down that avenue while the player base declined due to sever performance and balance issues.

    Meanwhile, the dev team spent over a YEAR building Hossin...

    <head shake>

    Let's not encourage more "small scale, tactical" focus. That can and does exist in game...BUT HAS NO REAL MARKET VALUE without the CORE GAMEPLAY being healthy.

    If you keep reducing this game to "I am in an elite squad" then eventually 24 v 24 fights will be termed a zerg when squads consist of only 6 people.

    I've managed tech projects for 20 years and it never ceases to amaze how the market keeps refilling its ranks of people who do not understand a product's reason for being.

    I guess it's due to universities churning out Identity Studies graduates who believe that if you "feel" a thing is a different thing then it is.

    Hey look, a rock! I believe it's a marshmellow! I'm going to eat it !

    <breaks teeth>
  19. karlooo

    Everyone knows that. But no one enjoys having a massive multiplayer combat, pretty much an uncoordinated mess, inside these tiny bases and small clustered rooms...that's pretty much the whole game. So much effort was put into the map design and all we do is just fight for these tiny bases (bases should be more open). Which without player numbers you cannot win, that's how the devs designed the game rules.
    • Up x 2
  20. Demigan

    The problem here is how it will play out. In the previous system the 260 players could win from the 300 simply because you had 5 people working on HIVE's in your ranks while the opposition did not have enough players that wanted to do anything with PMB's because the system sucked. Simple animo for engaging in a system should not be the reason you win.
    Any system you give to the underpop would also be useable by the overpop and thus make it irrelevant unless you design a system specifically for the underpop. For example an underpop could get resource discounts (rather than resource boosts) to make access to grenades and vehicles easier, or allowing more freedom in exiting the spawn or receiving the ability to call down a vehicle using those experimental crates from PTS anywhere you are overpopped by a minimum amount.

    PMB's should not be the primary method to balance it out, especially since it forces you to play an entirely different game just to defeat an overpop? And what if you are equal pop and using a PMB? Suddenly that anti-overpop completely imbalances it to the PMB user! That's not fair, that's not good design, that's not balance.


    PMB's should support the base game more. For example by giving PMB's the ability to generate special objects. Imagine a PMB construction element that an infantryman can pick up and bring towards a point. At the point he deploys it and now the point is captured and blocked off. Only with explosives can you disloge the object and perhaps you can overload it. Once destroyed the enemy can recapture the point. This allows an attacker (or defender) to make points harder to capture. There's dozens of variations you can think off. Imagine a tool that allows you to "pick up" a point and walk around with it? (within a reasonable distance ofcourse). Suddenly the enemy needs to hunt you down and destroy the object you are carrying before they can capture the point, while you are protecting/capturing the point in this time. Other tools could provide fortifications or shields for doors etc.
    What I think could help is bring the base game into PMB's as well. Currently attacking a PMB is a completely different experience from attacking a standard base. But imagine this: Every large construction piece receives a "base" piece. This is a seperate entity spawned with the building piece. This base piece is nigh indestructible and will only be destroyed once the silo is destroyed.
    Should the construction be destroyed, for example an AV tower, then the base piece remains intact and allows you to quickly rebuild the AV tower. For a cost ofcourse. Each base piece is a rudimenary building that infantry and vehicles can fight around, and each base piece is randomly chosen from a set amount depending on the building. So an AV tower could get (as example) an X, L, Y, I shaped "tunnel" as a base piece, with within the tunnel some random obstacles for cover. Now you have something to fight around and through as you move through the base, which makes a PMB a whole lot more like current bases and allow for a much more diverse and interesting playthrough each time you fight through a PMB.
    • Up x 1

Share This Page