Any plans on making base capture have more options?

[MrBloodworth]

As it stands, there is only one tactic to control a base that I can tell. Capture points. PS1 offered many more avenues and base systems to disrupt, or shift how the base was being captured or defended. Right now, while there are more capture points to capturing a single base, instead of just the command center. The elements that could add deus ex machina moments seem to be gone.

NTU/Ant/Drains, Generator, spawn point removal ( Through destruction or Gen dropping/Hacking ), Hacking disruptions, Equipment denial... Nonexistent in PS2 as far as I know.

I believe my point is that its about the options to approach a situation, and form a plan accordingly, at a squad or empire level. Things like having one squad drop a gen, or defend it/Repair it ETC... Many of those moments, and the possible comebacks or counters are missing.

Those elements of base capture created some really exciting moments that many remember to this day.

PS: Also, where are the doors?

[captainkapautz]

Yes, has been mentioned in multiple videos.

[MrBloodworth]

Insightful post, thanks!

[Spoof]

PS: Also, where are the doors?

Gone, thank God.

PS1's doors were like a fourth empire, that backdoor especially. It was always mysteriously closed when I was shot from the other side.

[captainkapautz]

Insightful post, thanks!

No problem.

[Duddy]

Those elements of base capture created some really exciting moments that many remember to this day.

PS: Also, where are the doors?

Doors: It seems there aren't (m)any save for the forcefields on spawn rooms that prevent entry.

As for your other points, as I discussed in that other thread, whilst they created some great moments they equally created just as many bad ones.

Generators, I feel, were ultimately more detrimental to the game than beneficial. Whilst the option was certainly effective, it was too effective far too often. More importantly it was the fact that it often detracted from active gameplay that.

Whilst I am disappointed to see the NTU system not make a return I can understand why. Most players saw it as more of a hassle, again something that took them out of core gameplay, rather than something fun. Not to say that it didn't have its moments.

I could go on, but my message is that I think that the removal of some of these features focuses people back on the core aspect of the game.

With that out of the way, I am concerned that we have only seen the capture system presented to us at Zhuravan(?) AMP station. They seem to have implied that there are more and differentiated systems but we have yet to see that.

I certainly hope that hacking/disruption is actually included and has substantial features to it. Again concerned we haven't seen much of it yet.

TL;DR

Most things that are gone seem to be for good reason, we haven't been shown enough diversity so far however.

[Xyntech]

Insightful post, thanks!

We haven't heard much word on the other capture types, but they did state frequently during the E3 streams that there would be more ways to capture.

They may still be deciding which ones they want to use. There may even be some added during beta, or even post launch. Remember that LLU's were added after the first Planetside had already launched.

I wouldn't mind seeing a base or two having the timer hack like the first game. Maybe not 15 minutes, but that would be for playtesting to decide. An LLU style flag system would be fun as well.

I hope we see a lot of variety.

[Madcut]

As far as I can tell, and someone with more knowledge can correct me, they have "loose" plans to implement content just as generator rooms or other tactical objectives. In some videos Higby talks about being interested in adding such content in the future.

I think it's pretty unlikely that the developers will leave PS2 the way it stands now with virtually no objectives other than taking control points in a base. IMO, SOE is good about consistently adding new content to their games, and I doubt that content will solely be in the form of player customizations over skins and weapons.

PS2 has the potential to be a great competitive FPS game ala SC2 style with just as devoted players. It would be silly for them to screw this potential up by just focusing on implementing BF/COD elements to a stripped down PS game.

I think we'll have to wait till beta to see.

[MrBloodworth]

Whilst I am disappointed to see the NTU system not make a return I can understand why. Most players saw it as more of a hassle, again something that took them out of core gameplay, rather than something fun. Not to say that it didn't have its moments.

Stuff like this was part of core game play. Its part of what separated PS from other titles. Shear size was not the only thing PS had, and they already have this covered.

I respectfully disagree that the elements created bad game play, but I also do not subscribe to the notion I must be shooting at something every second of the game. Part of the draw I feel of PS was the tools given by the game design to approach things differently than just capturing a Command center. Removal of those options does not make it a better game, there needs to be elements for all users, not just FPS fans. The shooting game they also have covered.

Right now, it seems bases are very limited. Not very dynamic, and lack any tools given by the system for different methods of capture, making it a bit stale.

Players refilling the silo right before it went neutral created some of the best moments in any game. So did the push/pull of generators, and spawn rooms. Clearing and repairing a squad defending a dropped generator was another epic moment that needs to stay.

My proof is the many stories, from life, as well as war stories from PS1 experiences.

I would like to see PS2 have multiple points to sway, or change how something is being captured. Thoes Deus ex machina Moments.

[Duddy]

Stuff like this was part of core game play. Its part of what separated PS from other titles.

It was a feature of game play, a very interesting addition at that but the core of the game was that it was a Massive Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter.

I don't want to get particularly hung up on categorisation but the fact remains the game was marketed as, and is currently still, as a first person shooter. These types of features are supplemental to the experience and not what should be considered core.

Additionally, NTU almost stopped being relevant once it stopped being drained when players/vehicles were spawned. All that remained was a mechanic that reinforced maintenance (as it was spent to repair base facilities) and as a means of opening a base irrespective of lattice (via drains).

My proof is the many stories, from life, as well as war stories from PS1 experiences.

For just as many anecdotal dues ex machinas I think it is safe to say there were just as many, if not more more, exasperated sighs as one slowly drove an ANT from the nearest warpgate to a base.

This is of course subjective, but I think something that the target market SOE seem to be going for would not enjoy.

I would like to see PS2 have multiple points to sway, or change how something is being captured. Thoes Deus ex machina Moments.

I agree most fully, and expect the devs to show us something along those lines in due time. There certainly needs to be options, if there aren't then the game will suffer for it.

Dues ex machina moments will likely exist regardless of feature set however.

[GreatMazinkaise]

We need T2-style gens and destructible equipment (equipment stations, vehicle stations, radar, lighting etc...). Obviously we'll be getting alternative capture types (hopefully more than the CTF/CC versions in the original).

Some indoor vehicle terminals behind indestructo-windows would be nice (might already be in game actually).

The Hex/resource system has lots of potential to add to the strategic depth of the game, but it can't stop there.

[Malorn]

I'm sure they'll add more. They added more in PS1, and LLU was fun so I expect we'll see something like it come back, but it may not be until after release.

Also the demo showed 3 capture points, but in previous screenshots at that same amp station we saw 6-7 capture points. So they slimmed it down for the demo, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that amp station have a lot more tactical options come beta.

[I SandRock]

Doors: It seems there aren't (m)any save for the forcefields on spawn rooms that prevent entry.

As for your other points, as I discussed in that other thread, whilst they created some great moments they equally created just as many bad ones.

Generators, I feel, were ultimately more detrimental to the game than beneficial. Whilst the option was certainly effective, it was too effective far too often. More importantly it was the fact that it often detracted from active gameplay that.

Whilst I am disappointed to see the NTU system not make a return I can understand why. Most players saw it as more of a hassle, again something that took them out of core gameplay, rather than something fun. Not to say that it didn't have its moments.

I could go on, but my message is that I think that the removal of some of these features focuses people back on the core aspect of the game.

With that out of the way, I am concerned that we have only seen the capture system presented to us at Zhuravan(?) AMP station. They seem to have implied that there are more and differentiated systems but we have yet to see that.

I certainly hope that hacking/disruption is actually included and has substantial features to it. Again concerned we haven't seen much of it yet.

TL;DR

Most things that are gone seem to be for good reason, we haven't been shown enough diversity so far however.


Remove all 'hassles' and you're left with quite a dull unchallenging game. It's overcoming challenges / hassles which are the most memorable.

When you say Planetside my first thought is:
Entire team dropping from a galaxy on a base, fighting down to the basement, blowing the generator and holding the room against an overwhelming force.

Not:
Randomly shooting at people to capture point X for the millionth time. That's what eventually Planetside 2 will feel like. With every base being captured in the same way, after going back and forth capturing bases the same way for months you will wish there was a generator to blow up!

[JHendy]

Remove all 'hassles' and you're left with quite a dull unchallenging game. It's overcoming challenges / hassles which are the most memorable.

I agree. Well put.

[Malorn]

I think it would be interesting to see doors in a few places.

Make two types of doors - locked and unlocked. The unlocked ones can be opened by anyone, and the locked ones can only be unlocked (temporarily) by infiltrators. That sort of system would open up new pathways if you were an infiltrator or if you had an infiltrator with you.

More teamwork, more strategic options.

Normal doors would change things up and help them not be quite so exposed and open, though I think it is the locked infiltrator-only unlockable doors that are most interesting for gameplay.

[MrBloodworth]

I'm sure they'll add more. They added more in PS1, and LLU was fun so I expect we'll see something like it come back, but it may not be until after release.

Also the demo showed 3 capture points, but in previous screenshots at that same amp station we saw 6-7 capture points. So they slimmed it down for the demo, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that amp station have a lot more tactical options come beta.

My fear though, is that capture points do not DO anything, but satisfy 1/6 needed to turn the base.

What I want to see are areas/items that can CHANGE how the base is captured. More like the original. Perhaps many people disliked that someone blew up all the terminals in a base, but it did change how that bases was taken. I do not see this as a bad thing at all. May suck for the moment, but its stuff like that that made the battles dynamic.

[Duddy]

Remove all 'hassles' and you're left with quite a dull unchallenging game. It's overcoming challenges / hassles which are the most memorable.

When you say Planetside my first thought is:
Entire team dropping from a galaxy on a base, fighting down to the basement, blowing the generator and holding the room against an overwhelming force.

Not:
Randomly shooting at people to capture point X for the millionth time. That's what eventually Planetside 2 will feel like. With every base being captured in the same way, after going back and forth capturing bases the same way for months you will wish there was a generator to blow up!

Well you seem to be implying that all hassles are challenges. We both know this not be the case, ANT runs in particular we never challenging with the exception of when it occurred during a very busy/big fight.

Certainly at that point it offered a strategic gameplay option, deny them the ANT and they lose the base, right?

The problem is far too often that people would forget this tangential concern until too late. The old cry of /cont all "Is anyone getting an ANT for 'X'?" should be familiar. This just highlights that it came as a secondary concern to people and the fact often people had to be prompted also shows that it didn't fit too well.

As previously noted, I fully agree that we need diversity in order for the game to be sustainable. But unlike yourself I believe this should be achieved through facilitating the challenge being our enemy players as opposed to oft avoided and forgotten gameplay mechanics.

[Dagron]

Remove all 'hassles' and you're left with quite a dull unchallenging game. It's overcoming challenges / hassles which are the most memorable.
I agree. Well put.
QFT

[The Kush]

I would like to see a central command that you have to hack and hold like the old game. As well as being able to hack bases to turn off the power, destroy terminals and spawns, ect

[MrBloodworth]

Certainly at that point it offered a strategic gameplay option, deny them the ANT and they lose the base, right?

The problem is far too often that people would forget this tangential concern until too late. The old cry of /cont all "Is anyone getting an ANT for 'X'?" should be familiar. This just highlights that it came as a secondary concern to people and the fact often people had to be prompted also shows that it didn't fit too well.

Mission system. One of the best improvements to PS2, even if we know nothing about it.

I also highly disagree that ANT runs were not challenging.

[Duddy]

Mission system. One of the best improvements to PS2, even if we know nothing about it.

We still end up with the same problem from PS1 though, assuming the same NTU system.

5 people turn up with ANTs, only 1 or 2 get to do anything meaningful at best, leaving the other players feeling like they just wasted their time.

[MrBloodworth]

We still end up with the same problem from PS1 though, assuming the same NTU system.

5 people turn up with ANTs, only 1 or 2 get to do anything meaningful at best, leaving the other players feeling like they just wasted their time.

Hard to say, as we do not know if said mission would ask for a Gal pilot, an ANT driver, 2 Air-cav and gunners.

Still, it was only one example in making my point. Due to "resource" system changes, not that relevant other than its an example of emergent game play that created tense moments.

[MrBloodworth]

I would like to see a central command that you have to hack and hold like the old game. As well as being able to hack bases to turn off the power, destroy terminals and spawns, ect

This kind of goes hand and hand with other threads I have made. The 10,000 foot view seems to be that they do not want denial in the game, or really anything other than "A to B" and I feel its a mistake.

With out loss, there is no gain. If you never are inconvenienced, you can never overcome it.

I personally never get a "sticky" feeling taking something in other titles ( With exception of ET:QW ). And that has nothing to do with persistence.

[Gonefshn]

I agree completely with the intent of your OP MrBloodworth but do not share your concern.

I know other people have stated this but we have 100% confirmation from the devs at E3 that there will be multiple ways to take over a base. What they are we don't quite know but we know it won't all be capture points. Think about the Biolab. Just by looking at it I am sure it will work much differently.

I don't think it's fair to say the capture point mechanic is bad. As long as we have a variety of ways to capture the different bases having some be capture points is just part of that variety. And running franticly from point to point can be really fun. It gives you lots of things to worry about and manage while also pushing you towards other objectives. (this is exactly what the gen and spawn tubes and CC did in PS1, except in PS2 we should have even more points of contention in a base).

The only thing I think we need to push for is having some meaning to some capture points. Like one being a "generator" of sorts that shuts down turrets and certain things.

[MrBloodworth]

I don't think it's fair to say the capture point mechanic is bad.

I do not believe I said that.

To clarify: I'm saying there needs to be handfuls of other elements to bases that change the flow of how the battle goes. Real, Utility based, things. Not JUST points that fulfill 1/6 requirement to flip it.

Hell, let a hacker LOCK a vehicle bay door! That changes a battle, if only for a moment.

[Duddy]

The only thing I think we need to push for is having some meaning to some capture points. Like one being a "generator" of sorts that shuts down turrets and certain things.

I agree with this, it coincides with a need for hacking/disruption to be useful too.

Not that all capture points need meaning, but there do need to be considerations outside of just capturing/defending the points.

[MrBloodworth]

We are all talking about the same things here I think. However, I do not want generators being something that works like a capture point. It needs to be something you destroy, or hack.

There needs to be SOMETHING, that requires classes.

[MrBloodworth]

Gone, thank God.

PS1's doors were like a fourth empire, that backdoor especially. It was always mysteriously closed when I was shot from the other side.

That was 2003. As a game mechanic, they were an integral part of capturing and defending a base, as they were floodgates that could create gaps in the flow of reinforcements.

I like the idea Malorn had, where some can ONLY be opened by Hackers, and would open a completely different route to a goal.

Again, SOMETHING needs to require classes.

[Duddy]

Again, SOMETHING needs to require classes.

Whilst I agree with this conceptually, I don't want to see a situation having certain classes become an absolute requirement.

But providing options through the tools available to classes, definitely.

[KTNApollo]

Gone, thank God.

PS1's doors were like a fourth empire, that backdoor especially. It was always mysteriously closed when I was shot from the other side.

I disagree. Nothing like hearing a door opening right before all hell breaks loose.

[MrBloodworth]

Whilst I agree with this conceptually, I don't want to see a situation having certain classes become an absolute requirement.


That's just an area where we disagree, and that's just fine. I personally have no issue with "We didn't bring a hacker, we need to rethink our plan"

I do like the idea of optional paths, for lack of another term. Not required, but quite helpful. That base concept (optional) can be expanded.

[Xyntech]

I think we'll see a lot of the non-base type hexes be back hacked. I think they will be easier to capture (although hopefully still not too overly easy).

Bases are going to take more effort, but I think that's okay. A back hack could capture some territory surrounding a base, and then bring some of the zerg in to help push into a base that was previously behind enemy lines.

[Gonefshn]

I agree with the idea of having objectives that require classes and roles to fulfill.

However I don't think you can have a generator work exactly like PS1. Adding a generator that takes out spawning or terminals at the entire base in a game this large would create almost a one shot win condition. Blow the gen and it's over. The TTK is faster and if spawning or getting gear is suddenly lost to one empire at a base they will be wiped immediately.

If your going to incorporate a gen it should certainly have a different role such as taking out shields, slowing respawn, making turrets go offline. etc.

[Shogun]

i would like to see something resembling the old module system.

i know, we got no caves, but that´s not the point.
the thing i would like to see is some kind of item we can bring from the foothold (or from a special building we have to conquer first) to a contested base to get some advantage as long as it is installed and under our control. with the ability to steal this thing and take it to another base. just like we could with modules in ps1.

this would add another tactical layer and meta game.

and the "catch the idiot who stole our module" game WAS fun. stealing a mod under the eyes of the enemy was extremely difficult but a nice challange!

[Inverness]

Hey, on the note of ANTs and NTU. How about, instead of NTU draining and needing to be refilled, why not make NTU automatically restore itself and require enemies to actively drain it with a special vehicle (opposite of an ANT) in order to power down the base.

The same goes for other things like generators if they're added. Make it so generators can repair themselves as long as NTU silo is online.

An NTU drain would be a long term thing that would take time depending on how many vehicles are draining it (there would be a maximum drain rate). What nearby hexes you own could also affect how fast the NTU silos restore themselves, so a single drainer couldn't drain the NTU fast enough if the base and everything around it is not owned by their empire.

Generators could be shorter, faster things that only require firepower to destroy. You could also have multiple generators per base, either for different sections or different systems.

[Landtank]

Hey, on the note of ANTs and NTU. How about, instead of NTU draining and needing to be refilled, why not make NTU automatically restore itself and require enemies to actively drain it with a special vehicle (opposite of an ANT) in order to power down the base.

The same goes for other things like generators if they're added. Make it so generators can repair themselves as long as NTU silo is online.

An NTU drain would be a long term thing that would take time depending on how many vehicles are draining it (there would be a maximum drain rate). What nearby hexes you own could also affect how fast the NTU silos restore themselves, so a single drainer couldn't drain the NTU fast enough if the base and everything around it is not owned by their empire.

Generators could be shorter, faster things that only require firepower to destroy. You could also have multiple generators per base, either for different sections or different systems.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/mother-of-god-gif.gif

Mother of god, it could be like an.. ANTI ANT

[MrBloodworth]

Thanks for a constructive thread guys, gals and otherwise.

Hopefully someone of importance read it, and understood the points.

[Inverness]

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/mother-of-god-gif.gif

Mother of god, it could be like an.. ANTI ANT
Exactly.

I'm imagining a long vehicle that looks like a crane truck except the end has this clawed thing that latches onto the NTU silo and drains it. The trucks would have to keep draining actively in order to kill the base, which means they're susceptible to things like bombing and OSes (assuming the NTU silo is outside, which it doesn't have to be). There might only be three draining trucks allowed per silo in order to prevent drain times from being too ridiculous.

Once it hits 0% the base powers off completely and stays that way until it is restored to 20% or something. It would restore itself on its own. Optionally, if having all of them restore themselves on their own is unfavorable, they could only restore themselves if there is a connection between the hex containing it and the hex containing that empire's foothold/warpgate. This way you could surround a base to cut off automatic NTU refil, but lone drains in the middle of enemy territory become difficult since there are multiple paths to the warp gate which increases refill rate.

[Xyntech]

I wonder if the anti-ANT could also function like a regular ANT.

Like, you drain the base, but when it stops being drained, it automatically regenerates NTU's, however it doesn't do it instantly. Maybe it takes a while, leaving the base vulnerable in the meanwhile.

So if you want to restore the NTU's more quickly, you would bring in your own ANT/anti-ANT to rapidly fill it back up.

Both of these function could be added to a heavily modified Sunderer, with some appropriate tradeoffs. The Sunderer already will act as a resupply point, so why not resupply/drain NTU's as well? I think the Sunderer could use some additional roles. I'm fine with the idea of it being a new vehicle as well though. Not a biggie for me.

It wouldn't be quite the same as an ANT run, in the sense that you wouldn't be going all the way over to a warpgate and then all the way back to the base, but at least it would provide some sort of additional logistical support, which the enemy could deliberately attempt to cut off as well. With aircraft being as fast as they currently are, I don't think the shorter travel time that the Sunderer (or new unique vehicle) would have would be too big a deal.

[Inverness]

...

The Sunderer would work as a good temporary model for testing the feature, but an ANT variation of it for draining/refilling bases would have to remove all weapons and spots for anyone but the driver in order to fit the equipment in.

[Xyntech]

The Sunderer would work as a good temporary model for testing the feature, but an ANT variation of it for draining/refilling bases would have to remove all weapons and spots for anyone but the driver in order to fit the equipment in.

Oh I totally agree. It shouldn't be something that players are just randomly driving around the continent without reason.

I just tend to suggest adding functions to previously existing PS2 vehicles because it seems to be the direction they are heading in with a lot of things. I figure that finding a way it could be a modification to an existing vehicle may increase its chances of working it's way into the game.

Personally, I'm very in favor of having something like the ANT brought back as it's own vehicle, with it's own multi-functionality. I'd like to see it also be used for things like building larger deployables than engineers can usually build.

I believe the devs have mentioned bringing the ANT back in some form, although I don't know if that was intended to mean as a modification to another vehicle, or as it's own vehicle model. I'm holding out home for something like the ANT in either case.

[Landtank]

The idea of being in a base and then the lights flickering and going off while in the middle of a firefight is overwhelming..

That could certainly be one of the mini objectives, but I don't want to see it completely shutting down spawns and ending the battle, it should simply help the attacking team etc.

Having classes needed to take certain points sounds interesting, it would have to be implemented perfectly, or else it could just end up being frustrating.

[Tapman]

I don't think the other options are out because they can't work, I think they were out in the staple Alpha build they set up for E3. The strategic complexity of Planetside 2 is going to develop after they test the current infrastructure with population growth, balancing abilities and weapons while more are developed, etc. so worry not.

I like the idea of having different capture methods depending on the base, variety will be key to keeping people's attention. Arclegger said that the base shown in E3 actually has six capture points, I think it would not be unreasonable to have 3-4 different types. To the people who say that Generators were terrible in Planetside because they killed fights too quickly, I believe the solution will be to have different systems running on different generators, each with various (dis)advantages in attacking and defending. For instance, having flood lights rely on a fairly easily accessed generator. Taking down a medium difficulty generator takes out vehicle terminals, the most difficult one to attack and defend being the one that affects the power in the spawn room.

[Dagron]

The idea of being in a base and then the lights flickering and going off while in the middle of a firefight is overwhelming..

That could certainly be one of the mini objectives, but I don't want to see it completely shutting down spawns and ending the battle, it should simply help the attacking team etc.

How about making objectives more easily accessed from outside when a base is powered down? Something like: when the power is cut off shields or automatic turrets in a few corridors go offline and more paths to the center of the base open up.

[GuyFawkes]

I don't think the other options are out because they can't work, I think they were out in the staple Alpha build they set up for E3. The strategic complexity of Planetside 2 is going to develop after they test the current infrastructure with population growth, balancing abilities and weapons while more are developed, etc. so worry not.

I like the idea of having different capture methods depending on the base, variety will be key to keeping people's attention. Arclegger said that the base shown in E3 actually has six capture points, I think it would not be unreasonable to have 3-4 different types. To the people who say that Generators were terrible in Planetside because they killed fights too quickly, I believe the solution will be to have different systems running on different generators, each with various (dis)advantages in attacking and defending. For instance, having flood lights rely on a fairly easily accessed generator. Taking down a medium difficulty generator takes out vehicle terminals, the most difficult one to attack and defend being the one that affects the power in the spawn room.

See , this is well thought out reasoning and variation from an old concept . Needs coordination , teamwork to pull off . Won't work with a rogue infil who's only goal in life is to play pve all day.

The NTU thing , I agree with duddy . Nothing so timewasting than going through all that nonsense to arrive and find 3 other ants lining up. I'd prefer them to maybe have to use NTU's but have outposts which supply a base and a pipeline you can disrupt or hold the outpost restricting it . Bring fighting and tactics into the idea . Think laterally and evolving the idea rather than just wishing for same old broken and meaningless methods back for the sake of old times.

[proxy]

I think we'll see a lot of the non-base type hexes be back hacked. I think they will be easier to capture (although hopefully still not too overly easy).

Bases are going to take more effort, but I think that's okay. A back hack could capture some territory surrounding a base, and then bring some of the zerg in to help push into a base that was previously behind enemy lines.

It was stated in the last E3 stream that the farther away you are from the front line the longer it will take to back hack something.

I never like the lattice system when they put it in beta. It was far from an elegant solution to the problem.

[GuyFawkes]

It was stated in the last E3 stream that the farther away you are from the front line the longer it will take to back hack something.



True , takes longer but not impossible.

Its all relative though. The amp station in the e3 demo is almost central to the Indar map , and probably highly contested and people may stubbornly fight over it all day long and get nowhere. A 30 minute wait to defend a hack behind enemy lines may be much more attractive when you look at it that way.
Look at how people used to get dug into Gunuku , while rest of the map turned opposing faction . People will stay in a spot if theres a fight. The better players will get drawn off to fight the back hacks .

[MrBloodworth]

To be clear. I'm not talking about things you do to capture a base. They have capture points already, sometimes upto 6 or something you have to flip.

I'm talking about features like the original had that CHANGE THE BATTLE. Gen dropping, door hacking, Term hacking, Terminal destruction, Virus, Stuff like that.

Current setup is very one dimensional.

[Saifoda]

To be clear. I'm not talking about things you do to capture a base. They have capture points already, sometimes upto 6 or something you have to flip.

I'm talking about features like the original had that CHANGE THE BATTLE. Gen dropping, door hacking, Term hacking, Terminal destruction, Virus, Stuff like that.

Current setup is very one dimensional.

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes they're going to put stuff like that in game.

[MrBloodworth]

I'v seen no mention of that.

[Nashgari]

They have talked alot about the cooldowns / spawn timers on the different loadout changing depending on how the empire is doing on the entire continent.

Mayby a way for the terminals or cap points too have more meaning than just 1 / 6 of the base, could be to increase the different spawn timers.
For instance a capture point near the barracks could increase the inf respawn timers or something along those lines.

That way you could get a couple of infiltrators to cap the vehicle cap's to decrease the number of vehicles spawning.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I'm bumping this thread. Higby's confirmed that there will be base systems tied to generators (which will be all over the base area) in the vein of Tribes 2. Nice to hear that my assumptions were correct.

Mentioned systems:
*Vehicle terminals
*Turrets
*Base door shields

[JimmyOmaha]

As far as different capture mechanics, King of the Hill type game play was referenced. Not much detail other than that though.

Could see that working for smaller outposts very nicely.

[Hamma]

Good stuff! The interview will be on YouTube in the morning.

[Tehroth]

Yeah upgrading the bases to have better Com frequency against hackers who can listen to your convo, and to be able to channel across to a different continent. There should be communication jammers for certain vehicles for text and in game communication. I hope we all don't talk on one global chat for the whole world. Perhaps when running the game 3rd party voice communication cannot be used.

Also upgrading bases adds better benefits, better turret guns, maybe war game rooms for elected generals to discuss matters. I think the resources on a larger scale should be up to the players/faction leaders(To upgrade key bases or vehicle/weapon), but everyone still gets their own share of resources which they can pool together if need be to upgrade faction equipment/bases or use for their own purposes.

Make the game interact-able, just gaining resources from capping a base is a bit stale. Make it so we need to go for common goals.

Such as being able to add outfit outposts would be great. If the base is taken the outpost gets destroyed. It could be used for strategic reasons and for outfits to have a base of operations(Make the outfit outpost upgradable, so they have a goal to work for).

Most people might have their outposts in the main quadrants, but the brave few will be on the frontier with each new hex they capture. This will promote outfits protecting an area. I think this would add a new element to the game in terms of sandbox, guild/clan/outfit unity and promote people actually sticking to an area and defending instead of zerging it up.

There should be upgrade ranks that require resources, and the top teir requiring heavy resources, maybe outfit "valor" and generals of the faction's approval.

This is from my other post on the subject. I would personally like to see implemented if not already.

[Anubisstargate]

Nice thread here was thinking about posting something similar.

So here's what I've been thinking, the doors are a must, but should doors be hacking terminals again? Or maybe class specific ways to open doors?
Now before I advance with suggestions I'm noting down that I haven't done too much recent research on class specifics so sorry if I do make a few errors.

Light assault: C4 yes that's right, time to blow up those doors and barge your way inside. Blown up doors can be repaired by the engineer's to counter this.

Heavy assult: Do they have RPG or some sort? If so again they can blow up the doors.

Engineer: blow torch treatment would be cool, since the engineer's are quite powerful, give them a cooldown style with the blow torch so they have the disadvantage with the doors.

Infiltrator: To give meaning to the name of the class these guys should have hacking equipment. This will split the infiltrator to being important for breaching as a stealthy type as opposed to being a full on sniper.

Medic: I'm at a loss with an idea for the medic so any idea's?

MAX: like the LA and HA they can also blow up the doors.

So majority is blowing up the doors, now the HA and MAX since don't use C4 they have to use more since realistically speaking C4 is a concentrated explosion. Which there is a lack of C4 held to explosive rockets, so if the balance was accurate for the doors, it would equal out well so each method is just as important/efficient.

Enough about the doors.

I had an idea about base capturing and one thing really shone to me which puts zerger's at a disadvantage.
Base capturing should be done via team work. Sychronised terminal capturing to ensure that you need a team to take a base as a minimum. This would stop zerging and make it a bit of a challenge. Because one thing that is bugging me is the difficulty/requirements to take bases. Now its a hard decision because SOE want to support as many people as possible but sometimes you have to focus on the "main" playerbase who are going to be dedicated and play PS2 on a very regular basis who are serious about the game. But base captures should be harder than PS1 to ensure that your hard work taking the base is not just a careless victory that will be swiped away as soon as you turn your back.

Times on taking the base should be 'lengthy' but obviously not too lengthy, like an average of one base per average play through for working people. This makes the feeling of capturing more victorious because you're gaining little for loads of effort, for me that is a true victory to be working really hard for one thing.

[fvdham]

@Anubisstargate
Have you seen doors in a PlanetSide 2 video?

[Anubisstargate]

Nope :p

[Zebasiz]

@Anubisstargate
Have you seen doors in a PlanetSide 2 video?

GDC 45 minute gameplay video at 29:40. Among other times. They are explained as shields, but can be hacked so you can pass through. I also saw them in the E3 footage.

There may be other types, or they are just force fields, but there are doors or a sort.

[Exmortius]

hopefully there is some form of llu run again cause man it was damn epic when you capture and run the football and everyone gets to see your name hehe. especially after a big battle that sometimes takes a good hour or 2 to take the base. those were like total team america f### ya moments :D
maybe a base where you have to hold 4 points AND capture the football and run it back to another point. that would be hella tough.

[Memeotis]

I'm sure there is going to be tonnes of different ways to capture bases, and I hope they add other features (like hacking force-shield-doors), which don't directly add to your capture-bar, but rather give you more options. A mini-game for some of these features would be nice too. Blacklight has the thing, when you are hacking, where you have to match the number and press either left or right, and it brings a very immersive tension into the game.

But yeah, things like outposts around a big base definitely need to give you access to things like tunnels, being able to turn off the light in the main facility and maybe accessing some doors remotely. Similarly the main base could have a central hub with a CPU that would be linked to alarm-systems in all of the different points of interest, able to alert the defenders of attackers who don't know how to bypass the laser/sensor system; you know, something for the infiltrators to make them feel important and/or badass. Or something along those lines. :P

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Remove all 'hassles' and you're left with quite a dull unchallenging game. It's overcoming challenges / hassles which are the most memorable.

When you say Planetside my first thought is:
Entire team dropping from a galaxy on a base, fighting down to the basement, blowing the generator and holding the room against an overwhelming force.

Not:
Randomly shooting at people to capture point X for the millionth time. That's what eventually Planetside 2 will feel like. With every base being captured in the same way, after going back and forth capturing bases the same way for months you will wish there was a generator to blow up!

Sounds like a metaphor for life...

I agree completely. Some of the best fun I've had was in the strategic planning stages:- If we drop the gen at [blah] then the TR lose all cavern benefits, AMP station benefits, Tech plant and interlink. Then we can take their other base that much more easily. If a team of 10 goes and does a gen hold (boring, pain in the bum job) then the team as a whole will reap the benefits and go on to victory.

To me, that's awesome fun. You might like shooting things in the face over and over and over again and that's cool, but I'd rather be an gal pilot/engy/medic without a weapon behind a wall of maxes working for the greater good of the empire.