[Suggestion] Vehicle Capture Points

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Abraham with Cheese, Apr 19, 2016.

  1. Abraham with Cheese

    It would give something for tanks and other vehicles to do other than just shoot people. It'd give infantry an objective that doesn't involve "standing on this point for 6 minutes", and instead a means of support, not fully-fledged "run straight at the enemy like in every other base" gameplay.

    It'd make base capture far more fluid and less likely to be dominated solely by infantry, especially if we reduce a vehicle capture point time to just one minute. Some bases, especially those with a small-ish base but a large hex, would be removed to make way for a sunderer garage and a vehicle terminal inside a small bunker-like building, nothing more: no spwans, jump pads, teleporters, or anything.

    Plus, along that line, would it be too hard to, say, make some bases where only aircraft can capture them, such on top of plateaus or mountains, that don't serve as main bases, but instead are simply little outposts that, sat, extend radar range or something?
    • Up x 4
  2. HadesR

    It would be nice to have non-base cap points vehicle only .. By non-base I mean such as bridges etc .. Capturable landmarks rather than bases..

    That being said I imagine the role of needing vehicles will increase a lot with the construction system.
    • Up x 3
  3. Taemien


    You might be on to something.
  4. Abraham with Cheese


    Well, if bridges could be vehicle capture-only, then maybe capturing certain points in the mountains with aircraft, like those small random towers here or there, could serve as another benefit? I'd imagine controlling small radar towers all over the map would help a team just as much as hinder an enemy's progress.
    • Up x 1
  5. Taemien


    Getting warmer. :D

    I'm going to toy around with these ideas and maybe post some of my own. But I like what I'm seeing in this thread.
  6. Septus

    This stuff would be fantastic, it would be a great change of pace and we would see more long range field combat even for infantry. maybe put some trenches near the cap point for people to hide in.
    • Up x 1
  7. HadesR


    I've always been in favour of areas that are separate from the lattice system but follow the hex adjacency rules. It's mostly been imagined in a more Spec-Op's infantry flavour .. Ie: Being able to drop behind enemy lines to capture and hold a bridge cutting off reinforcements, or capturing ammo depots ( disables X amount of Ammo Towers ), or radar emplacements .
    But no reason parts of it can't be aimed at vehicles also.
  8. oberchingus

    Harasser Capture the Flag!!!!
  9. Abraham with Cheese


    Well, I thought one of the supposed major bases that was cut was an uplink station or something, so coming up with mini bases around the map/s could very well add some depth and complexity the game sorely needs. For instance, seeing as, say, a squad holding a small radar dish on a plateau only reachable by air logistics, could in turn reveal a part of the hex/surrounding hexes that show every single enemy of the oncoming zerg.

    Plus, vehicles fighting over vehicle points might take some pressure off of infantry-only bases, and thus make any vehicles actually there all the more valuable.
  10. ArcKnight

    I like this

    we could make the bridge at J908 impact Site one of these, granted we might have to make some structural changes to it before implementing it
  11. PatateMystere

    I would see small base being capture only with a deployed sundy in the middle of it. A vehicule only capture point. Defender would have to destroy that sundy and attackers to defend their sundy.
    The point should be in the open with small cover items.
  12. Demigan

    I would keep the bases, and keep the timers as they are. Swap some bases to have multiple vehicle points to capture (for larger bases including infantry capture points for a complete set!) and you could have a true dominance game, where both the attackers and defenders need vehicle superiority across an entire region to capture it.

    Due to the nature of the attackers having vehicle superiority most of the time, you would need to do this on area's where the defenders have ample of time to react and pull their own vehicles. For example between Indar Excavation and Quartz Ridge there's enough room (and the right base layout) to pull vehicles before the enemy surrounds you and crushes any possibility to pull vehicles safely. Indar is already getting bases removed for a more open combat system, this would be a primary way to introduce these new vehicle capture points.

    Example: Broken Arch road is going to be removed, this creates enough time between Crossroads and Tawrich to pull new vehicles. The construction system would also allow either team to build a fortress under the Broken Arch to slow down attackers (keep in mind that with the removal of the base it will be much wider there!).
    Now you suddenly have a massive area where vehicles can roam. The area between Crossroads and Tawrich could be divided between those bases. Crossroads especially could use some vehicle capture points spread through the region, with 2 infantry capture points remaining within the base it would still draw enough attention to be attackable but most of the battle would rage in the surrounding countryside.

    Another way vehicle captures could work: Powering modules. I've proposed it in the past, vehicles could be placed on pads to power something. This could be a lightbridge, a hacking method to shut down vehicle shields/hack the spawnroom, a way to power vehicle shields or even just functioning as a captured point while a vehicle is parked there.

    Imagine if rather than capture points in a base you have 3 bunkers spread around a region. The bunkers offer a little protection from vehicles, forcing vehicles to come inside to capture it. In the middle of the bunker you can place and deploy a Sunderer, at which point the bunker becomes a functional capture point and starts capturing/holding the main base in the region. Since it's a deployed Sunderer infantry can spawn there and try to defend it, but there's no vehicle shields or anything to defend it so you are better off using the vehicle terminals inside the bunker to create the army you need to hold them off (and using the construction system, assuming these bunkers are far enough from the base's center to build there). The attackers and defenders would suddenly have to move from bunker to bunker and destroy/replace the Sunderers for supremacy, the large amount of travel required to get everywhere would incentivize vehicles as well.
  13. Eternaloptimist

    Not sure about this idea. I can see how vehicles on or near a cap point or a key terrain feature can already prevent infantry from successfully capping or holding something. And that is fine.

    But allowing vehicles to actually capture things implies that the game could rapidly become a vehicle game with little or no incentive for infantry play. Hell, continuous bombardment from several vehicles can stop infantry even getting out of a spawn room in one piece (I'm sure many of us have experienced that) never minds trying to assault and recapture something defended by possibly lots of vehicles.

    I guess support for this idea depends on whether you prefer flying, driving or running about.
  14. Demigan

    Be that optimist! They aren't asking for every base to have these capture mechanics, but some bases. By rotating the things required to capture a base you help create more variety.

    In fact, you could even put themes on lattice lanes. The bases before a Techplant? Those could mostly focus on vehicle play and support vehicle capture points rather than infantry capture poitns. The bases leading up to Biolabs would focus on infantry play, especially since focusing on vehicle play would mean all those vehicle players suddenly have to leave their vehicle when they reach the biolab. The Biolab is the epitome of infantry play, the Techplant would be the epitome of vehicle play, and the AMP station would mix it up. You could alternate the infantry capture mechanic and vehicle capture mechanic in the bases leading up to an AMP station, and even combine them in some bases.

    That said, every base and the bases in the lattice need to be reviewed if you do this. Shifting from a vehicle-only base to an infantry-only base would take too much out of the flow of battle, but gradual variations are perfect. First you come up to a complete vehicle base where infantry are mostly bystanders that help rather than the core of the gameplay, then a mixed one that's slated to vehicles (more vehicle cap points than infantry) then a mixed one that's slated to infantry, than one that's focused on infantry with vehicles mostly being bystanders that can help a little.
    • Up x 1
  15. ArcKnight

    how about both infantry and vehicles being able to cap these points and vehicles can only cap them at half the rate of 1 infantry
  16. Eternaloptimist

    I still have my reservations, but it is a well-argued suggestion. I could certainly see the logic of making, say, ammo resupply points capturable by vehicles. as they are only useful to vehicles. And maybe vehicles being able to capture designated points on a lattice that can cut off bases held by an enemy..............rapid strikes against supply lines sort of thing.
  17. Naaahhhhh

    No pleace not. The tr armor spam is already cancer to this game. Can't count the amounts where TR had a dozen tanks arround the base and bombarded the **** out of the base. The only thing why they are not unstopable is because they cant cap the base with their tanks. With gatekeeper the prowler is just to strong to let this happen.
  18. LodeTria

    It should be a point in a single hexagon which counts as a "base" but has a capture time of 1 minute. This "base" then links to other lattices that would otherwise be un-accessible to that lane. An example would be a Subterranean Node which can be captured allows attackers of Subterranean Nanite Analysis to begin attacking Split peak Pass instead of SNA.
  19. Abraham with Cheese

    Adding small bases to existing hexes, without making them part of the capture point, but instead on a hex system as opposed to a lattice, would mean that holding an area of the hex would be fairly beneficial. After all, if you, say, capture a radar tower that reveals all enemy aircraft in bordering hexes, that would certainly be helpful to your fight.

    Then again, those radar dishes would have to be spread out so that they are in every other hex or so, just so one side can't easily monopolize on them. Perhaps once captured, they stay captured for your team until the continent locks or another team captures them instead? That might encourage people to actually camp out at one of those, even if it was a small Valkyrie squad, so that the rest of the attack would have radar support.

    Then again, I'd love to see a bunch of small bases that have more trenches and bunker-like systems than just plain above-ground buildings.
  20. Abraham with Cheese


    If only Uplink Stations were actually in the game, this might make things more varied and interesting, though I'd have to say that making up links between bases might not be the best thing. If anything, these "nodes" in hexes that have differing functions should be hex-based in terms of connectivity.