Preventing Ninja Base hacks

[Sentrosi]

I've been keeping folks over on Anandtech.com's forums (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2126376) abreast of the goings on with PSN and we have a discussion going on over there. One of the suggestions on how to change Planetside came from a guy named SunnyD:
I just hope that if they do change SOMETHING, they make it so that ONE person can't go ninja bases. Sure, let em sabotage a generator or something, but it should take more people to actually CAPTURE a base than one. Even if it is undefended.


To which a guy named Zargon posted this in response to SunnyD's issue:
maybe 2-3 small squads of AI defenders at all bases?

I don't think that's a bad idea. But, obviously, wanted your input. Feel free to chime in.

[PsychoXR-20]

No, I don't like this idea at all, AI NPC's have no place in PlanetSide.

It takes a long time to single-handedly take a base. One of my favorite things to do when I played was take Zal and Atar on the old Oshur. It was generally just me, but sometimes my friend would join with me. It takes anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour just to drain the base and get it neutral, during which time anyone can come and try and stop you. Once the base is empty and you have a hack on it, it's only a matter of time before someone comes to try and take it back. Best I ever managed to do was get to Atar before enough people showed up, kicked me back to the sanctuary and re-locked Oshur.

With the lattice system in place, there is no reason to stop a lone person from trying to take a base. It should be known that if one empire has a link to a facility you control, that that facility is up for grabs.

This game s about strategy, communication and coordination, putting in AI NPC's to guard a base simply because you don't want to have to deal with that facility at that time is stupid.

[Bags]

Spitfires is where I draw the line of AI. Not to mention the AI would probably be douche bags and use dragons / thumpers.

[Raymac]

I don't know. I always thought adding some NPCs might be cool. I don't mean color NPCs randomly walkin around the Sanc or having a Shopkeeper Willie. I mean on the battlefield.

The only reason I entertain the thought is because Planetside is a game that thrives on numbers. So I figure adding some AI players on top of the real players would make the big battles bigger. Plus, this is AI we are talking about. How much easier is it to run through some game's single player campaign than it is to go up against real people? It's like jedi slicing through battle droids.

So, really, I'm kind of curious why people are so against NPCs on the battlefield. Be gentle because I'm genuinely curious.

[Bags]

I don't know. I always thought adding some NPCs might be cool. I don't mean color NPCs randomly walkin around the Sanc or having a Shopkeeper Willie. I mean on the battlefield.

The only reason I entertain the thought is because Planetside is a game that thrives on numbers. So I figure adding some AI players on top of the real players would make the big battles bigger. Plus, this is AI we are talking about. How much easier is it to run through some game's single player campaign than it is to go up against real people? It's like jedi slicing through battle droids.

So, really, I'm kind of curious why people are so against NPCs on the battlefield. Be gentle because I'm genuinely curious.

Because if I want to shoot the AI I'll play half life or L4D... I play PS to play against PLAYERS. Really, how is this hard to understand?

Not to mention AI is either too easy or too hard.

[Raymac]

Because if I want to shoot the AI I'll play half life or L4D... I play PS to play against PLAYERS. Really, how is this hard to understand?

Not to mention AI is either too easy or too hard.

No. I get that and it's why I like to play Planetside too. I'm just curious as to why it must stay so pure to that idea. I'm not saying make AI the main course, but maybe a side dish, or like as gravy just sprinkled on top? Gravy is good, right?

[Bags]

No. I get that and it's why I like to play Planetside too. I'm just curious as to why it must stay so pure to that idea. I'm not saying make AI the main course, but maybe a side dish, or like as gravy just sprinkled on top? Gravy is good, right?

I hate gravy so your metaphor isn't doing much for your case.

[PsychoXR-20]

So, really, I'm kind of curious why people are so against NPCs on the battlefield. Be gentle because I'm genuinely curious.

1. This is a PvP game, you don't see AI players running around in CoD for the same reason you shouldn't see them running around in PS.

2. when I kill someone I want to know that there is another human being behind that character, its what makes FPS multilayer fun.

3. This is the biggest issue, balance. How do you balance AI in a persistent multilayer game like PS? There are no difficulty settings in PS, and there is no way to balance AI. AI that is obscenely hard for one person could easily be cake for another. But that same player that finds them hard could very well out smart or out maneuver the guy that finds them easy and win. If you rock at CoD's single player, and find it boring cause it's to easy, bump up the difficulty, that's not, nor should it be, and option in PS. This is not WoW where you can balance AI against players who are higher rank and have them be harder. They have to function the same for everyone.

4. Ever played BF2142 "single player" against the bots? It's boring. AI can only do so much, and once you learn their limitations, they are easy to beat and pointless to have, they just become a nuisance.

5. They could very well mess up coordinated attacks and give up your position. Or do things you were specifically avoiding (taking down a generator, spawn tubes etc.)

6. AI is expensive, PS has the luxury that 99.9% (wall turrets and spitfires) of all the servers processing power is devoted to keeping track of players, bullets, vehicles etc. Imagine of there were half-a-dozen squads of AI players running around, the server would take a shit and the game would run like shit. And don't tell me this is 2011, because that doesn't mean anything, AI is still expensive processing wise, and the last thing we need is a performance hit in PS.

[Grimster]

Maybe they could have a smaller invisible SOI which basically is the courtyard of the base and when at least a squad of enemies(They don't have to be in the same actual squad) is within that SOI the base is considered breached and therefor hackable?

[Aractain]

It would be a better design to 'lockdown' bases that wern't opened for battle (blah blah something to do with a lattice type thing whatever).
I.E. If you have no defenders, you can't open a base and you can't take an undefended base?

I assume the idea is to stop people from ghosting an entire continent at off-peak time etc?


Edit, basically what Grimster said... lol

[Raymac]

Psycho, that makes sense. Any single one of those points is really enough not to have AI. I can see how the cons outweigh the pros.

[DviddLeff]

When the pops are up there should be a fight at the end of every base lattice.

There are enough continents to support what, 4000 players per server (not including the caverns)?

Ninja base hacks have their place, although I have in the upgrade project capital bases requiring double hacks to be captured, and outfits could upgrade a base with dual locks on doors to stop lone hackers.

https://sites.google.com/site/planetsideupgradeproject/_/rsrc/1277547100603/phase-2/terrain-overhaul/Dual%20IFF%20Door%20Lock.jpg?height=323&width=400

Oh and regarding AI, I wouldn't mind having herds of animals to add visual flair to the battlefield, but they shouldn't be attacking soldiers or tanks!

https://sites.google.com/site/planetsideupgradeproject/_/rsrc/1262971542456/phase-3/shifters9.jpg?height=240&width=320

I do suggest in the upgrade project that squad leaders and engineers could set up defensive drones to protect an area or the squad leader, like mobile spitfires. This is similar to those found in BF2142.

http://cache.kotaku.com/images/2006/05/battlefield2142.jpg

[I SandRock]

Don't need NPCs. There's nothing wrong with ghost hacks and the like. It means you first have to send a scout to check out what's going on, he could rehack it if there's just 1 guy or he'd have to call in for back-up.

It works nice like that.

[Jonny]

It's like jedi slicing through battle droids

Yes. There should be three battle droids at each base, who run up to you as you exit a lift and go "blast em'!"

Their weapons do 50% damage and you can use the force to smash em against a wall.

[Lartnev]

My first thought is "What's wrong with ninja base hacks?" If you leave a base undefended you deserve to lose it to your opponents.

Besides, AI opponents means the ninjas just get better ;)

[Elude]

There is nothing wrong with ninja base hacks, infact it adds to some unique gameplay at times.

As everybody else said I also like to see no AI what so ever, unless it's some static NPC in the sanctuary. What I wouldnt mind seeing is turrets inside the bases that drop down from the ceiling.

What I think would really help with this manner though but not prevent it (definitely don't want to prevent ninja base hacks!) is to have less bases per continent, I honestly think we should have half the amount of bases in Planetside Next then in the original, this would increase the amount of players per battle rather then having them scattered across the continent, and it would decrease ninja caps.

[I SandRock]

It would be a better design to 'lockdown' bases that wern't opened for battle (blah blah something to do with a lattice type thing whatever).
I.E. If you have no defenders, you can't open a base and you can't take an undefended base?

I assume the idea is to stop people from ghosting an entire continent at off-peak time etc?


Edit, basically what Grimster said... lol

I'd like to see bases lock down for a while after you capped them to speed the battles a long a bit and you're not fighting an entire day on the same continent just to wake up the next morning and see it's been recapped and you start all over again :p

[Jonny]

What I think would really help with this manner though but not prevent it (definitely don't want to prevent ninja base hacks!) is to have less bases per continent, I honestly think we should have half the amount of bases in Planetside Next then in the original, this would increase the amount of players per battle rather then having them scattered across the continent, and it would decrease ninja caps.

That makes sense, and more variety in bases. Like you could have an air base under a waterfall, with entrances in the ground by the river and a large entrance under the waterfall where aircraft fly through the water to get into the bases cavey landing area.

Or a base perched on the edge of a cliff, or one in a thick forest...

[LesserShade]

The lattice system was introduced during beta to address ninja hacks. This is a non issue IMO.

[Hamma]

That is true, but it is still a small issue albeit not as big as it was in Beta.

The idea of being able to upgrade bases with dual hacking panels that need to be hacked at once is an awesome idea! :lol: Sure it wouldn't stop it but it would make it quite a bitch and require team effort.

I don't like the idea of NPCs either, but command systems built a bit better to allow commanders to see what is going on behind their front lines would also help this. IF they received some kind of a warning to a base they were monitoring so their squad could respond quickly - that would be cool. :D

[Traak]

Maybe they could have a smaller invisible SOI which basically is the courtyard of the base and when at least a squad of enemies(They don't have to be in the same actual squad) is within that SOI the base is considered breached and therefor hackable?

Make it so it takes five guys simultaneously on five doors hacking them to open the base.

That would eliminate almost all ninja hacks.

Making anything require teamwork DRASTICALLY slashes the number of people doing it in PS.

For example, if the MCG, Lasher, and Jackhammer were crew-served weapons? LOL! No one would use them, because the ammo guy wouldn't be having his LEET status exalted by his partner making kills.

All you have to do to reduce ANYTHING in PS is make it require a team. Then the Prima Donnas find something else to do, where they can pad their stats and crow and flap their wings on top of some leader board.

If the only thing you could do solo in PS was boomer vehicle pads, people would be scrambling over each other to out-boomer the others so they could be on top of the idiot board.

Making things require teamwork in PS is like hiding a Welfare abuser's monthly check under his work boots and tell him to find it somewhere. It makes it far less likely to happen.

[Bags]

Make it so it takes five guys simultaneously on five doors hacking them to open the base.

That would eliminate almost all ninja hacks.

Making anything require teamwork DRASTICALLY slashes the number of people doing it in PS.

For example, if the MCG, Lasher, and Jackhammer were crew-served weapons? LOL! No one would use them, because the ammo guy wouldn't be having his LEET status exalted by his partner making kills.

All you have to do to reduce ANYTHING in PS is make it require a team. Then the Prima Donnas find something else to do, where they can pad their stats and crow and flap their wings on top of some leader board.

If the only thing you could do solo in PS was boomer vehicle pads, people would be scrambling over each other to out-boomer the others so they could be on top of the idiot board.

Making things require teamwork in PS is like hiding a Welfare abuser's monthly check under his work boots and tell him to find it somewhere. It makes it far less likely to happen.

I'm a primma donna because I enjoy killing people in a first person shooter? Grow the fuck up already.

[kaffis]

If you ask me, preventing ninja hacks should be about two things:

1) Restricting the available options of what's hackable to each side. The lattice system was an attempt at this, and, for bases, was more or less successful at this part of the solution. The lattice focuses the fighting down to a manageable (provide the server/continent has population) battlefront. The only change to be made if you think ninja hacks are still a problem is perhaps put some restrictions on tower hacks?

2) Encourage defenders to man vulnerable bases that are currently quiet. This is the part PS fails miserably at, and I don't blame them, as it's a hard problem to tackle. Quite simply, for most people, manning static defenses or patrolling when there's no nearby enemy activity is pretty boring. So it doesn't get done. What I'd like to see is for there to either be a reward/incentive for doing so (this gets tricky when it comes to making it abuse-proof; you could do things like award periodic xp for "defending" a friendly base with a vulnerable lattice link, but then you'd have people AFKing, etc.), or to make it so that if a commander/squad makes a gamble and says "we think base X is going to see some action, soon, so let's man its defenses and be ready," they get a payoff if/when the enemy shows up. So, risk some boredom and be rewarded for the gamble.

Perhaps the squad can accrue "defense points" that then can act as a bonus or multiplier for the first 5 minutes of an assault when the enemy finally does arrive?

[Sentrosi]

but command systems built a bit better to allow commanders to see what is going on behind their front lines would also help this. IF they received some kind of a warning to a base they were monitoring so their squad could respond quickly - that would be cool. :D

Hmmm, an idea sprung to mind on this subject. Through a sort of Command Tree interface a continental CR5 could designate a base that is going to be watched by a squad/platoon leader? The CR5 would have to be at an Interlink base on the continent to use this ability. The Command Tree would show the CR5 such information as squad strength, general position, etc. Now he could receive updates while in the field, but he could only designate bases with Interlink bases.

[Hamma]

Indeed that would be interesting. I really think that is key to PSN. Having more tools available to decide where you want to go next rather than all sorts of crazy additions to base defenses and the like. The more AI added the less interesting PlanetSide becomes so why not offer more tools to the players to decide how to respond?

[Grimster]

Yeah agree I think PSN should be kept AI free apart from the turrets then maybe. :)

[kaffis]

Hmmm, an idea sprung to mind on this subject. Through a sort of Command Tree interface a continental CR5 could designate a base that is going to be watched by a squad/platoon leader? The CR5 would have to be at an Interlink base on the continent to use this ability. The Command Tree would show the CR5 such information as squad strength, general position, etc. Now he could receive updates while in the field, but he could only designate bases with Interlink bases.
This is definitely the kind of additions to command that I would appreciate seeing (I can't help but wonder how awesome Planetside could be if it drew on some of the strategy/command elements in Allegiance; I have no idea how you'd select/control who gets to do the commander roles there, as having a bad commander is a seriously crippling blow in Allegiance. In Allegiance, it's handled by a tight community where commander reputations are well known and instanced servers, both things that do not/we hope don't apply to PS), but I just wanted to pop in and point out that there still need to be incentives for that squad to listen and "watch" the base. Why? Because, at the end of the day, it's boring patrol duty whether somebody told you to go do it or you just decided to on your own.

[DviddLeff]

Doesn't the red alert system and the tactical overlay already do the job of telling us when a base is under attack?

[BlazingSun]

Ghosthacks or what ever you want to call them, started to become annoying after the "bending". If I remember correct: before, the continents where not connected to so many different other continents. By capturing specific continents, you could prevent the enemies from attacking one or two of them, as there were no other links available. This meant that the battles were more concentrated, which was good. Only downside was that you were often fighting on the same continents.

Additionally, if you captured all bases on a continent it would lock that map for some time, preventing instant backhacks. (At least I think that's the way it was ... or is it still that way? I honestly can not remember).


Bottom line is: I found all the ghosthacking etc. annoying. Trying to open up a new continent to split the enemy's troops is one thing. But all the ghosthacks and NTU drains from single persons all over the place was just annoying. If there are enough people who are willing to respond to these ghosthacks, it's fine. But often enough, no one could be bothered (including myself).

[Hamma]

Doesn't the red alert system and the tactical overlay already do the job of telling us when a base is under attack?

Well yea, but when it's to late.. :lol:

[GoldDragon]

It would be a better design to 'lockdown' bases that wern't opened for battle (blah blah something to do with a lattice type thing whatever).
I.E. If you have no defenders, you can't open a base and you can't take an undefended base?

I assume the idea is to stop people from ghosting an entire continent at off-peak time etc?


Just want to expand on this thought...

I am one of those guys running around and loving being able to back-hack to pull troops from the main conflict. This is a strategy that I feel NEEDS to remain in game. However, I do agree that it should take a little more effort because after playing for so long and figuring things out "Ninja Hacking" a base is in fact quite easy.

The idea of Lockdown appeals to me because it adds an extra defense to undefended bases. This would encourage the introduction of new content such as welders, breech explosive, etc. Certifications that allow people to SPECIALIZE in breaching lockdown bases. As for having one person able to do everything needed to take a base, this is were I think a certification tree would be useful. Basically an extended version of the current cert system, every soldier can have a weapon, vehicle, and support specialization (ie. Light Weapons, Support Vehicles, and Breach Equipment) but to be fully specialized in one the others suffer.

What this all boils down to is to prevent ninja hacks, you have to limit player abilities while introducing new challenges that require teamwork to overcome. That's what I'd like to see happen, not the complete removal of back hacking.

[kaffis]

Well yea, but when it's to late.. :lol:
Yep. This is why I'd like to see some kind of pro-active defense rewards cooked up. Being told "the base is under attack!" is, well, not currently productive.

[Effective]

If you don't want a base to be ghosted, you need to have people respond to the hack. NC are notorious for letting hacks on there homeconts go through.

Watching the map = Best idea.
Now, something could be introduced for say 1 person going along to multiple bases and just throwing hacks on the base over and over.

[Edfishy]

I love the teamplay mechanism for some hacks, that's pretty ingenious.

[Bags]

There's this thing called looking at your map. that's how you prevent ninja base hacks.

[Traak]

My first thought is "What's wrong with ninja base hacks?"

They necessitate something other than first person shooting: boring, stale, long-term base babysitting.

I would like to see the only two bases on a cont that are active and capable of being hacked, genblown, or whatever to be two adjacent enemy bases. Enemies of each other. All the others locked down and capitol domed.

I want to see battles where one guy can't drag everybody down the tubes of boredom with a gen drop or tube drop or virus.

And I do those three things quite a bit. If I don't like the fact they are in the game, no one else has any reason to, no?

I mean, it reminds me of the allied forces in Afghanistan now. One Hadji sneaks behind the lines and locks all the porta-potties. OMG! Now we have nowhere to crap! *allied forces have left the game*.

Ridiculous.

Make the front lines the only place you can kill anything or anyone. All other bases are domed and locked. The boring hours we spend either killing gens etc. or guarding and repairing them really deflate the fights we WERE enjoying.

In a boxing match, the opponents don't get to just hang around near their post and hurl insults at each other. They have to "mix it up." Well, I want to see that in PS:Next. Make it so the fighting is concentrated, not diffuse as it is now, because it can be quite boring for the support guys, like me, to be behind the friendly or enemy lines so far. I would really prefer there to be no advantage at all with being at Neti when the fight is at Yazata, but there can be, and that is BORING.

You flip a base, GREAT, the next enemy base is un-domed and you can now go fight over that, not to mention all the terrain between. But people even being able to get ON an enemy continent and drain and blow up bases? Shouldn't be possible.

Please, don't bother whining "OMG you suck, you should just do HA" blah blah blah. Some of us like support, and support is way more fun where the bullets are zinging overhead, rather than five continents away where someone has initiated a drain hack on Nexus. Who is going to fix that? The HA guys? Nah.

By making bases sequential, and invulnerable until they are, it concentrates teh battles where they should be, in, above, hopefully under, and between bases, not on Old Oshur when the fight is on Solsar, or whatever.

[Bags]

rather than five continents away where someone has initiated a drain hack on Nexus. Who is going to fix that? The HA guys? Nah.



Actually it generally is DT / KOTOR / (in the past) 1CMM who do most of the resecuring.

[demise14]

You all assume AI automatically means combat personnel running around freely.

What if you could get small robots or drones that provide support but don't attack? Similar to the CE already in the game but expanded to follow you around or stay mounted in one spot (but only provide things such as healing or repairing).

I think it'd be pretty cool to have some advanced engineers setup repair bots at the top of stairs of a tower behind some max units while it gets assaulted. Or deploying some vehicle repair bots in a courtyard that maneuver around repairing damaged vehicles.

I mean, every futuristic world has robots. So the only way I'd agree with weaponized AI is if they were robots or drones that are obtained somehow. Possibly being another layer to CE that costs a good amount of certs? Or something only commanders can obtain and deploy?

Oh and while on the subject - I always thought CE should be deployable indoors. It would make base defending a lot funner especially when outnumbered.

[Effective]

They necessitate something other than first person shooting: boring, stale, long-term base babysitting.

I would like to see the only two bases on a cont that are active and capable of being hacked, genblown, or whatever to be two adjacent enemy bases. Enemies of each other. All the others locked down and capitol domed.

I want to see battles where one guy can't drag everybody down the tubes of boredom with a gen drop or tube drop or virus.

And I do those three things quite a bit. If I don't like the fact they are in the game, no one else has any reason to, no?

I mean, it reminds me of the allied forces in Afghanistan now. One Hadji sneaks behind the lines and locks all the porta-potties. OMG! Now we have nowhere to crap! *allied forces have left the game*.

Ridiculous.

Make the front lines the only place you can kill anything or anyone. All other bases are domed and locked. The boring hours we spend either killing gens etc. or guarding and repairing them really deflate the fights we WERE enjoying.

In a boxing match, the opponents don't get to just hang around near their post and hurl insults at each other. They have to "mix it up." Well, I want to see that in PS:Next. Make it so the fighting is concentrated, not diffuse as it is now, because it can be quite boring for the support guys, like me, to be behind the friendly or enemy lines so far. I would really prefer there to be no advantage at all with being at Neti when the fight is at Yazata, but there can be, and that is BORING.

You flip a base, GREAT, the next enemy base is un-domed and you can now go fight over that, not to mention all the terrain between. But people even being able to get ON an enemy continent and drain and blow up bases? Shouldn't be possible.

Please, don't bother whining "OMG you suck, you should just do HA" blah blah blah. Some of us like support, and support is way more fun where the bullets are zinging overhead, rather than five continents away where someone has initiated a drain hack on Nexus. Who is going to fix that? The HA guys? Nah.

By making bases sequential, and invulnerable until they are, it concentrates teh battles where they should be, in, above, hopefully under, and between bases, not on Old Oshur when the fight is on Solsar, or whatever.

No. If you make it so you can't drain bases, down gens, etc. You make it so if an empire gets sanc locked they have 2 choices, and at either choice they're going to get farmed pretty hardcore, with the way the current game is at least. Also forcing players to go to 1 spot is silly, players should be able to choose where to fight and where to go. If you don't want a bases gen dropped, boost the gen tubes, lay CE at is. Call for help if enemies show up.

Also, it's typically those "HA guys" are the ones who go and resecure ghost hacks, drains, etc.

[DviddLeff]

I would support having less warp gate links to reduce, but not eliminate back hacking.

[Lonehunter]

My first thought is "What's wrong with ninja base hacks?" If you leave a base undefended you deserve to lose it to your opponents.
Exactly

I personally knew quite a few people in the good'ole days that where fast response outfits for situations just like this. Those little skirmishes where a another unique type of fight in PS. It could even be the catalyst to a continent battle for the whole population.

As a long time cloaker I also think the "ninja base hacks" are ok. If I'm bored enough I will totally destroy a base and CE the hell out of it and drop a hack. My boomers, hacked turrets, AMS, router, and all around hit and run stealth tricks have helped me get my own base against 1-5 people before. 5 Minutes after the hack went through I was overrun by enemies, but it was awesome to accomplish.


One of Planetside's traits is the persistent online world. This means not every fight is going be balanced with numbers. Not every playing field is going to be fair. It's going to be decided by the playerbase. Using a numbers requirement to assault an objective seems too similar to smaller server-restricted FPSs to me. I don't really want every fight to be designed on even teams, or requiring a certain sized group to be there first. If I'm soloing, I like starting the next battle with 1 little hack.

Edit: Lets also remember the current hack and hold system sucks anyway, and should be tossed. What if the time on hack was sped up/slowed down depending on the friendly/enemy ratio? So one cloaker hacking a base with no enemies will take 20 minutes, but 20+ could make it a quick hack if no resistance.

[Azellon]

No. If you make it so you can't drain bases, down gens, etc. You make it so if an empire gets sanc locked they have 2 choices, and at either choice they're going to get farmed pretty hardcore, with the way the current game is at least. Also forcing players to go to 1 spot is silly, players should be able to choose where to fight and where to go.

I agree with the above that it sounds ripe for abuse. How about this: the lattice network allows Sanctuaries to spread around a bit of their power or whatever. However, when they're not diverting power (or whatever..not here to come up with the lore reason for it) they can provide a special type of equipment that allows players to override or pass through a capitol dome. Basically, if you do become Sanc locked, you can then blow absolutely any base on any continent. If you want to send out twenty guys to blow twenty bases on several different continents, so be it. It gets your troops back out into the fight right away, and they can ONLY do so if they've been Sanc locked.

While I agree that 1 base vs 1 base is pretty extreme, using the rest of the idea but otherwise maintaining the lattice network would be a great compromise. Basically any base directly on the lattice to an enemy base can't be domed, but every base that is attached only to other friendly bases is domed. It adds strategy.

[Traak]

The fundamental thing I'm looking for is everyone either shooting or supporting someone, directly, who is shooting. Not supporting the thing that the game does if it's a new moon and the tides are right, and the NTU is full and the gen is repaired and the Vanu didn't put a drain hack on it that might some time, if they get back to that base this week, be in some way useful to someone somewhere who is actually shooting, but that is not for sure.

I mean, shooting or directly supporting shooters. That's what I ask for.

[Lonehunter]

The fundamental thing I'm looking for is everyone either shooting or supporting someone, directly, who is shooting. Not supporting the thing that the game does if it's a new moon and the tides are right, and the NTU is full and the gen is repaired and the Vanu didn't put a drain hack on it that might some time, if they get back to that base this week, be in some way useful to someone somewhere who is actually shooting, but that is not for sure.

I mean, shooting or directly supporting shooters. That's what I ask for.

What if that base your friendlies where draining and taking was the enemy's only tech plant? I think Shooting at Threshers is a big direct change from shooting at Magriders

[waldizzo]

Lonehunter is right. Dropping generators or otherwise damaging bases not on the front lines can have a direct impact on the base that is on the front line. This tactic is often the reason why a hours long stalemate is finally broken.

Why even have a persistent world if players can only be effective at one location? May as well just play whatever run and gun fps is popular at the time.

Taking away the ability for players to think and play outside of the zerg would be detrimental to the game.

[Sentrosi]

Amen. Gen drops and ninja hacks are an essential part of Planetside. Traak, the world you are describing is Call of Duty/Battlefield/modern day FPS to me. And I've done support in that game too.

[Lonehunter]

Why even have a persistent world if players can only be effective at one location? May as well just play whatever run and gun fps is popular at the time.
I love you, I was thinking the exact same thing, just more complicated lol.