You need to make this a war game first, before anything elese.

[MrBloodworth]

Right now, from all accounts, you have a great gun play model. Now, you need to add in the elements that made PS1 a tactical, team based, war game.

Right now, as it stands, it looks to be more of a large session based game in its design.

A bunch of people "Playing alone, together", all going to control point "B" does not make this a team based game. Its simply the bare minimum.

2c

[Sporkar]

Another e-sport thread?

I agree though, wait until the game is released. Planetside 2 should be a game first. If it can work as an e-sport, it should bring out the game, not water it down.

[Dreamcast]

If matches on certain maps are put in then expect people to train for those certain maps so they could be #1 in the E sports.


Outfits should become #1 by helping the empire.....Not by winning some matches on some maps

[Cuross]

Why so many esport threads? My whole brain is crying T_T

On another note, I have heard hearsay from people (no evidence) that Higby was thinking of esports at some later time. That said! We will still be playing PS2 as a tactical war game, not as a competitive sport for a very long time. I personally think we should have a thread devoted to esports now so that we don't keep getting new ones. Especially since we all really don't know what we're talking about and it just turns into a big back and forth whine fest ^^;;

[kasiraghi]

No e-sports.

SEARCH threads.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=753327&postcount=180

[MrBloodworth]

Even if I edit the title to remove mention of E-spot, the point of the post remains.

Right now, base capture, and the options to do that goal, is limited to capture 0/6 points.

It's missing everything else. All the options of how to achieve that goal, all the Deus Ex Machina moments and actions that can sway the base fight.

[Cuross]

We've only seen one of many different kinds of bases that they're going to put in, and that happened to be a capture point base. We're going to see hell break loose at dozens of different bases with different strategies to capture them. There's threads about base designs as well, you can look for those, too.

[MrBloodworth]

We've only seen one of many different kinds of bases that they're going to put in, and that happened to be a capture point base. We're going to see hell break loose at dozens of different bases with different strategies to capture them. There's threads about base designs as well, you can look for those, too.

I'm not new here.

All bases should have capture points, AND utility items in the base that change HOW the base is captured. Right now, its just capture points, and just more of them. I'v talked about this before.

The point of the thread, is that adding thoes elements should be first on the list, before such things as "E-Sport" for a war game.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42358

[Kalbuth]

I'm not new here.

All bases should have capture points, AND utility items in the base that change HOW the base is captured. Right now, its just capture points, and just more of them. I'v talked about this before.

The point of the thread, is that adding thoes elements should be first on the list, before such things as "E-Sport" for a war game.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42358

I don't know the base captures systems, I've not seen them.
what are your sources to be so sure?

[Cuross]

Oh I agree completely that bases should have different aspects of combat and capture, but so far I don't think anyone really knows except the Dev team. We can only speculate until Beta comes out. But I also think that we're all focusing on esport a bit more than is necessary. I think we can rest assured that we will not see much more from the esport side until the war and tactic aspects are fleshed out completely. Therefore, I think that maybe you went around this thread the wrong way to get to the core of what you're really looking for, which is a discussion on base fights and captures. I may be jumping to conclusions about you jumping to conclusions that esports has high priorities, but I feel like we have nothing to worry about. I just think we're giving this whole esport thing more life than it deserves at the moment.

[JPalmer]

I'm not new here.

All bases should have capture points, AND utility items in the base that change HOW the base is captured. Right now, its just capture points, and just more of them. I'v talked about this before.

The point of the thread, is that adding thoes elements should be first on the list, before such things as "E-Sport" for a war game.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42358

And each capture point will have some feature connected to it like a vehicle bay or other stuff. So cap points will be a team-play feature.

It is going to be just like PS1, except now you have to cap 5-8 points to get access to all features of the base during the battle.

If the defenders are rolling lots of vehicles a Outfit can hotdrop on the point with the vehicle bay and then the defenders can't use it.

And to be honest PS1 bases were all cap points, except they had one big one.

[MrBloodworth]

And to be honest PS1 bases were all cap points, except they had one big one.

Not quite. Gens ( Denial ), Weapon Terms ( Denial ), Vech terms ( Denial ) Spawn tubes ( Logistics ), NTU silo ( Logistics ), all the options for hacking on the Main terminal ( Denial, confusion, distraction, utility ).

Those things change how battles are won and lost. They did not contribute directly to 0/6 to flip a base.

[Akadios]

I am confused with the multiple e-sport threads, has there been some announcement that makes people believe they are going to change the game to accommodate e-sports?

[JPalmer]

Not quite. Gens ( Denial ), Weapon Terms ( Denial ), Vech terms ( Denial ) Spawn tubes ( Logistics ), NTU silo ( Logistics ), all the options for hacking on the Main terminal ( Denial, confusion, distraction, utility ).

Those things change how battles are won and lost. They did not contribute directly to 0/6 to flip a base.


And those things may easily be in the process of being added to the game. If you deny the fact they are adding things to bases cap points in PS2 than I am going to deny all those features of the PS1 bases. One big cap point 0/1.

[MrBloodworth]

I am confused with the multiple e-sport threads, has there been some announcement that makes people believe they are going to change the game to accommodate e-sports?

Higby has more tweets about Battlefield, and various E-sports than PS2. He is a huge fan. They also just hired an E-Sport commentator, and competitor.

Not hard to put together.

[ThermalReaper]

Oh, so it's a stupid title, kind of like my "Important poll thread" to attract people. Ok.

Well my main problem is there isn't really much of thing being discussed here.

Edit: Also, I could have sworn I've read E-sports in the original post.

[MrBloodworth]

And you happen to be special enough that this needed it's third thread. No offence, but this is getting annoying.

I attempted to remove it from the title, as in hindsight I knew people would gloss over what is being said, and focus only on that.

The forums will not let me.

[Akadios]

Higby has more tweets about Battlefield, and various E-sports than PS2. He is a huge fan. They also just hired an E-Sport commentator, and competitor.

Not hard to put together.

Alright then yes I agree and raise my doomsday sign as well.

[ThermalReaper]

AHA! So it is another Esports thread. You sneaky bastard. Also, as Bags pointed out it's impossible that Wisenhunt gets to join this late in development and being able to persuade every single other developer into making this Counter strike or CoD or anything related to esports.

[Jikkan]

If you know what esports and competetive play means, you know it doesn't apply to Planetside.

I agree with the op. They should focus on making their game better at guiding players towards teamplay. Enabling a group of hundreds to effectively coordinate and work towards (hopefully) complex objectives obviously is not an easy task.

The conventional method is a points system such as the one Battlefield 3 uses. The problem is that you are not rewarding strategic teamplay, but simple actions that can be fragments of that.

The assumption is that the points system will encourage teamplay through rewarding simple actions and completing objectives. The reality in most cases is that players are playing to maximize their points gain, disregarding the state of the team and any objectives not within easy reach.

The bottom line is this: Strategy and teamplay requires thought. You encourage people to spend time to think about playing your game by making your game good. Playing the game well and having fun should be the reward, not +2000 XP / YOU HAVE BEEN PROMOTED.

I think there is a lot of untapped potential to be had by catering to organizing public players. Most games have failed at this. I think its almost a necessity for the success of Planetside to get this right.

Some of my crude ideas to facilitate that would be:

1) Missions from Commanders.
Players who have certed to be commanders should have the ability to directly interact with their team. A missions system, as have been described to be in Planetside, seems like a step in the right direction. I suspect though that it is a system that will have to be expanded on.

If the mission system is merely a signpost to the nearest meatgrinder, I will be disappointed.

2) Waypoints for Squadleaders.
Squadleaders are usually more concerned with the metagame than the average soldier, and they often attempt to execute strategies with their squad, which often fail miserably because their squad either did not understand the strategy or executed it well.

If they had the ability to clearly show their intention using some sort of waypoint system, that would at least help the squad understand his instructions.

Ideally it should be in 3D. And you should have different icons available to you and some method of timing the strategy. So say you indicate four different posisions, and then attack a point from those positions at exactly the same time. To time it you have a clock where you can set trigger points that will indicate to complete the instruction.

You could have icons for different classes so you have your Heavy Assaults in the nearest positions, and your infiltrator with the sniper rifle covering from behind. Maybe there are specific tasks that are required, such as hiding if you are a medic. Have an icon for that. Perhaps the system could be completely custom, with preset icons that have a custom description?

I'm sure these ideas could be expanded and improved upon, but I hope Planetside is heading in this direction and not some dumbed down esports form of it.

[UnDeAdKiTtY]

Agreed, Esports is way over hyped at the moment, I don't want another arena shooter, make this planetside thats why I am here.

[Kalbuth]

they hired a guy to have the gunplay done the best they can, and suddenly it's all over and the game is doomed.

Having the gun handling and shooting feel done the best is, quality-wise, as important to retain the playerbase as meta-game content.
Knowing that I remember Higby stating either on twitter or some video that they were adding mecanisms to make base capture more varied, I'm not over-psyched.

I'm all, all for a wide palette of tactics available to us, but franckly, this doomsaying cries are getting useless. If they concentrate on available tactics and we end up with a gunplay as stupid as PS1, the game is dead.
Sorry, but I see it as SOE having their priorities straight.

[TeaLeaf]

Stop talking about esports already.

Esports players have no interest in planetside.
Planetside is totally unsuitable to esports.
The devs aren't stupid.

Esports in PS2 is never going to happen. Stop scaring yourselves.

[MrBloodworth]

they hired a guy to have the gunplay done the best they can, and suddenly it's all over and the game is doomed.

I never said the game was doomed, only that the addition of things like E-Sports need to be secondary to making this more than a shooter, but a war game.

It helps if you read more than the topic.

[Kalbuth]

I never said the game was doomed, only that the addition of things like E-Sports need to be secondary to making this more than a shooter, but a war game.

It helps if you read more than the topic.

"They hired a guy to have the gunplay done the best they can".
That is all


No e-sport here, I don't know where you get that

check Higby explanation on JWizenhunt thread, it's not about esports

[ThermalReaper]

Whisenhunt said that it had nothing to do with E-sports. I haven't seen a developer talk about E-sports being in Planetside 2. Also, I don't think they are idiots and are going to focus on e-sports before closed beta is even out or even after the launch.

[Kalbuth]

from here : http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=750407&postcount=23
"Guys he's not here to change PlanetSide 2 into CS, or make an eSport, he's here to help us make our weapons FEEL awesome, balanced and competitive"

Again : having good weapon feeling is one of the key point in a FPS. This being a primary focus is GOOD.

[Goku]

I changed the thread title. However if this threads turns into back and forth esport thread I will lock it. We already have a few of those running around.

[Top Sgt]

Agreed, Esports is way over hyped at the moment, I don't want another arena shooter, make this planetside thats why I am here.

I have to agree

the last thing I want is an E-Wanna be Sport type attitude/game. The entire reason i am here and into PS2 is for the WAR/total combat type experience.

Not arena or scaled down competitions of guys who just camp constantly to win and then claim they are 1337 MLG and "pro" players.

Focus on making this the best FULL war experience possible. Focus on E-sports on your own time.

[Atheosim]

I think this thread is about base design, people. I noticed in the E3 videos that it pretty much looks like a BF map where enemies and friendlies alike are coming from all directions, whereas in PS1 there is a very distinct flow of battle at all times.

The main issue here is that we (not I anyways) have seen the same distinct flow of battle, except at I think PAX..? But that was because they had planned a framework for the battle, the had planned the flow of the battle.

[JesNC]

Gen Drops, backdoor rushes, base draining etc were all things that made PS1 not only a massive online FPS, but also tactically and strategically challenging - for people who could be arsed to organize those things.

They definitively need to be back in PS2 in one form or another. And I agree with the OP, while the footage we've seen is outstanding already, capping the base was only 3 CCs and nothing else.

But I keep my hopes up. I'm unable to dig up the link atm, but I remember reading that they're thinking about implementing dectructable Gens. Maybe even more, who knows....

As for the teamplay aspect, I'm certain we'll see some solid squad interface not too far down the road.

[Froglicker]

<del>I dont see how the original poster's statements automatically get interpreted as an e-sport thread. All he said was he wanted to make sure the game encouraged tactics and team based play.</del>

Edit: nvm, didnt realize this thread previously had a different title.

[Bags]

They said there will be generators.

[Hamma]

Yea we just don't know what they do yet.

[TheApoc]

i think we are also forgetting the map & recources that will be a huge goal of the game, the e3 demo dint take any of that into account.

I do agree on more ps1 mechanics being in the game.

BTW Hamma what happend to the outfit database? or am i missing something?

[Mechzz]

Yea we just don't know what they do yet.

One thing that was definitely mentioned was that taking a control point would deny the defender a radar benefit (spotting on minimap turned off?)

And that taking different control points would deny different benefits. I'm quietly hopeful that there's a lot more depth to the capture mechanics than we've been allowed to see so far.

[BillyBob]

For what it's worth, I couldn't agree more with OP on this.

As far as I'm concerned, this is indeed a war game and should have focus on team play and tactics in a simulated combat field situation.

If PS2 would ever lose any of that focus at the expense of making it more suitable for e-sports, then that would IMO be extremely unfortunate and definitely something many of us would be highly concerned about.

That said (and as previously stated), it's probably far too early to even begin worrying about any possible e-sports adaptations for PS2.

Let's just wait and see. :)

/BB

[MrBloodworth]

Gen Drops, backdoor rushes, base draining etc were all things that made PS1 not only a massive online FPS, but also tactically and strategically challenging - for people who could be arsed to organize those things.

They definitively need to be back in PS2 in one form or another. And I agree with the OP, while the footage we've seen is outstanding already, capping the base was only 3 CCs and nothing else.


Exactly.

Right now, the game has a base requirement of "playing alone, together". That's great and all, but where is the rest?

The Zerg is covered.

[GuyFawkes]

Exactly.

Right now, the game has a base requirement of "playing alone, together". That's great and all, but where is the rest?

The Zerg is covered.

All we have seen is one base set up specifically for e3 to showcase the game. A simple capture system so even a total newbie could get the basic idea in 5 minutes.

You are panicking way too much. Once we've had a better taste in beta and seen a bit more is the time to nitpick.

[MrBloodworth]

Lets shut the forums down now then. "Panicking" is a word you have chosen, despite no one panicking.

[Xyntech]

May I ask how Planetside 1 covered more than the zerg, specifically in ways that we know Planetside 2 will not cover it?

Most of the team work and organization in the first game came from the players themselves. We know PS2 will have squads, platoons, outfits, even a mission system that presumably will have uses for both zerg control as well as organized outfits.

Obviously we won't have mandatory 2 man MBT's, but that more enables solo play than it damages team work. Having a gunner will still be superior if E3 is any indication, and even if it isn't, 2 tanks working together are better than 2 tanks solo zerging.

[MCYRook]

Right now, the game has a base requirement of "playing alone, together".
Ah, you mean like PS1? :)

[MrBloodworth]

PS1 had secondary and tertiary objectives other than JUST capture points. Those secondary and tertiary objectives changed how battles were fought. They did not directly contribute to the flipping of a base.

With the current PS2, all secondary objectives have been merged with the primary, making them mandatory, and directly in line for the zerg game-play.

In PS1, the majority of players were zerglings, beeline it to the capture point with mass. Mostly oblivious to the the secondary and tertiary objectives targeted by Team play based groups. Even if they directly contributed to the zergs ability to beeline.

This is whats missing, what has been removed. When they lump what was once secondary objectives to the Control points it creates a situation where mass on points is the only necessity anymore.

That is the loss.

Rather than expand on elements that change how battles are fought, or flowed, they removed them by proxy of making them part of the primary.

They should have been expanded on. Not removed. Not consolidated. Not designed for "playing alone, together" as most session based shooters are. Instead of advancement of the the features beyond "go to point A", we have removal. Makes for a shallow game, less options, more "playing alone, together" game play.

[Xyntech]

PS1 had secondary and tertiary objectives other than JUST capture points. Those secondary and tertiary objectives changed how battles were fought. They did not directly contribute to the flipping of a base.

With the current PS2, all secondary objectives have been merged with the primary, making them mandatory, and directly in line for the zerg game-play.

In PS1, the majority of players were zerglings, beeline it to the capture point with mass. Mostly oblivious to the the secondary and tertiary objectives targeted by Team play based groups. Even if they directly contributed to the zergs ability to beeline.

This is whats missing, what has been removed. When they lump what was once secondary objectives to the Control points it creates a situation where mass on points is the only necessity anymore.

That is the loss.

Rather than expand on elements that change how battles are fought, or flowed, they removed them by proxy of making them part of the primary.

They should have been expanded on. Not removed. Not consolidated. Not designed for "playing alone, together" as most session based shooters are. Instead of advancement of the the features beyond "go to point A", we have removal. Makes for a shallow game, less options, more "playing alone, together" game play.

They have already talked about having features such as some form of destroyable generator, and just because the zerg may go try to hold a majority of capture points in a base doesn't mean that they will hold the correct ones that give the maximum defensive bonus to a specific capture.

From what we have seen, there is still just as much room as ever for team players and elite players to work off of the back of the zerg to maximize their empires effectiveness. Just because certain styles of objective from the first game may not return in the same form doesn't diminish that ability.

The zerg often blew generators and spawn tubes themselves, so it's not like having a zerg who sometimes captures the right control nodes and sometimes doesn't will be that much different.

Zergers will always zerg and team players will always work together. I would argue that there is actually a deeper strategy available in the form of capturing smaller territory hexes surrounding a facility before taking the facility itself. The zerg may end up just rushing from one massive base facility to another, while the smarter groups will have to support them by flipping surrounding territory so that capturing the base is more viable.

[MrBloodworth]

I do not have a problem with the hexes or influence system, that's not really what I am talking about. I'm talking about things that changes how a battle was fought, and flowed. The Deus ex machina.

Logistics, Denial, loss.

They changed them now to be primary and attached to base flipping. Instead of expanding them as secondary and tertiary things that affect flow. They should have been left detached from 1/6 capture points, and expanded.

Alternate paths that require a class. Wrenches to put in the cogs. Door locks set to explode on hacking. Power conduits to be severed. Equipment terminals to be destroyed ( moot now that you spawn fully geared ). Doors that require opening from the inside. Alarms. Pain fields. Resource drains. Power systems to corrupt. Doors that require Heavys to satchel charge. Arial denial systems to corrupt or flip to advantage ( Drop pods ). Ammo cases to remove. Communications to disrupt. The list goes on, and there are many Team based games to draw from.

Alternate, indirect methods to sway battles. Other than Cap point 1/6.

Right now, all we have is "go capture a point, oh and by the way, it also shuts down a vehicle term". Its also a problem, that everyone will know that vehicle term is now down. No more risking your life thinking you will be a hero to break the courtyard hold only to find the term is down, and you need an engineer.

The zerg is covered. Gun-play, updated. Options, dynamism, reduced.

[GuyFawkes]

I don't know the base captures systems, I've not seen them.
what are your sources to be so sure?

+1

they hired a guy to have the gunplay done the best they can, and suddenly it's all over and the game is doomed.

Having the gun handling and shooting feel done the best is, quality-wise, as important to retain the playerbase as meta-game content.
Knowing that I remember Higby stating either on twitter or some video that they were adding mecanisms to make base capture more varied, I'm not over-psyched.

I'm all, all for a wide palette of tactics available to us, but franckly, this doomsaying cries are getting useless. If they concentrate on available tactics and we end up with a gunplay as stupid as PS1, the game is dead.
Sorry, but I see it as SOE having their priorities straight.

+2 ,note the bit in red.

Lets shut the forums down now then. "Panicking" is a word you have chosen, despite no one panicking.

Maybe panic was a bit OTT :rolleyes: but you do appear to be looking into a fish bowl and mistaking it for a crystal ball ;)

I understand where you are coming from, variety is the spice of life. I just suggest maybe starting afresh and proposing all the different things you would like the ps2 devs to consider incorporating into the game . They might take note if its constructive.

[Xyntech]

Alternate paths that require a class. Wrenches to put in the cogs. Door locks set to explode on hacking. Power conduits to be severed. Equipment terminals to be destroyed ( moot now that you spawn fully geared ). Doors that require opening from the inside. Alarms. Pain fields. Resource drains. Power systems to corrupt. Doors that require Heavys to satchel charge. Arial denial systems to corrupt or flip to advantage ( Drop pods ). Ammo cases to remove. Communications to disrupt. The list goes on, and there are many Team based games to draw from.

More than half of the stuff you suggest wasn't even in the first game, and the rest wasn't in at the first games launch. That isn't to say that they couldn't step it up further with PS2, as much as it's an indication that PS2 will be at least as well off as PS1 was at launch, if not better off. We'll see how things look in beta, to see which of these sorts of additions would work or not, but for now it's looking pretty good.


Right now, all we have is "go capture a point, oh and by the way, it also shuts down a vehicle term". Its also a problem, that everyone will know that vehicle term is now down. No more risking your life thinking you will be a hero to break the courtyard hold only to find the term is down, and you need an engineer.

All that we need to capture a facility (at least in the E3 style, remember that there will be other capture methods which we haven't seen yet) is to hold a majority of the control points for a majority of the time until the base flips, possibly with the addition of adjacent territory helping make the capture go even quicker for us or the enemy.

So really, there is no direct need to hold every capture point, or to pick on capture point over another. So in PS1 you had to blow up a vehicle terminal or generator, in PS2 you have to hack it's control point. Big deal. It will be different, but not inherently better or worse, depending on how will it's implemented.

Are we really going to bring the team play aspects down to an occasional random moment where someone may be missing a piece of info and fail to complete their battle turning objective? Hell, I'd say that having more of that kind of information available to players who pay attention will actually be a good thing for team work. Random zerglings probably are going to tend to be focused more on who is under their crosshairs than whether or not a vehicle control point has or hasn't been captured. The team player who actually cares will know whether it's worth risking their neck on it or not.

I understand where you are coming from, variety is the spice of life. I just suggest maybe starting afresh and proposing all the different things you would like the ps2 devs to consider incorporating into the game . They might take note if its constructive.

This. I'm not against adding to the depth of the game, but given that the current info we have isn't as bad as some people are making it out to be, I'd much rather see how the current system is before passing judgement on which sorts of features would best be added to compliment the system.

If you just want to discuss ideas for ways to add more depth, there is an entire idea section to post and debate them, but I really don't see the current design being all that lacking compared to the first game.

It's going to depend on the players. No matter how many features they add, encouraging solo zerging or encouraging team play, it will always come down to the players.

[MrBloodworth]

More than half of the stuff you suggest wasn't even in the first game, and the rest wasn't in at the first games launch.

That's why I said they should have left things detached from 1/6 capture points, and expanded upon those elements.

You also keep focusing on the requirements to turn a base. I'm not talking about that. I don't care if all the bases are all capture points.

I said:

Rather than expand on elements that change how battles are fought, or flowed, they removed them by proxy of making them part of the primary.

[Xyntech]

That's why I said they should have left things detached from 1/6 capture points, and expanded upon those elements.

That's not the point. The point is that the game is not worse off than the first game. It's more on par with it (even if it handles some things differently) and has a lot of room to expand and grow deeper through beta and after release. The first game did a pretty decent job, but most of the important team play and war strategy elements came from the playerbase, not the developers.


You also keep focusing on the requirements to turn a base. I'm not talking about that. I don't care if all the bases are all capture points.

I said:

Rather than expand on elements that change how battles are fought, or flowed, they removed them by proxy of making them part of the primary.


Except that it isn't required that you must take every single point to capture a base, and it isn't required that you take any specific one of the points either. If the zerg rolls in and captures every point in PS2, it's not much different than if the PS1 zerg rolled in, blew the gen, blew the tubes, and then hacked the CC. A lot of the time in PS2, the fights will probably be fierce enough that capturing and/or holding every point isn't going to be an option, and at that point it's going to take smarter players to strategize which points to take.

The PS2 system is more like if blowing a generator in PS1 took a couple of minutes off of a base hack timer. So mostly what they have removed is the ability for a bunch of idiots to come in and blow up a generator that wont help their empire in any way, which was pretty much tantamount to griefing in PS1, even if it wasn't intentional griefing.

The strategy is still there. The zerg will still be idiots moving from battle to battle without thinking things through and the organized squads and outfits will still be taking appropriate objectives to further the cause. And don't downplay capturing the hexes surrounding a facility either. That will be equivalent to capturing the tower before taking a base in PS1, except that the zerg may not always do a thorough job of it like they tended to do with tower captures in PS1, and it will also be infinitely more important than capturing towers in PS1 was as well.

Certainly there will be room for new additions and improvements, but I'm just arguing that the foundation is pretty solid as it stands. Things will be different, but I'm not seeing where it will be worse. As much fun as it could be to have to hold a generator to prevent your own empire from blowing it unnecessarily, I'll be just as happy not to have to worry about that this time around. The most shit I want to have to deal with from the zerg is them attacking stupid targets. I'm perfectly fine with there being no "wrong" moves in capturing a base, just moves that are less useful in a situation, or more useful. Because the empire that works with and around their zerg the best, to make sure to take the most important objectives, will still come out on top every day over the empire that just goes with the flow and attacks shit randomly.

I still would like to see destroyable spawn tubes myself, but if we get into beta and it works well with invulnerable spawn tubes, I'll be happy to change my tune.

[MrBloodworth]

I'm thinking you are just talking past me at this point. I don't even know where to begin with all the assumptions and misinterpretations in your post. I'm not sure you are reading anything I am saying, or tracking the conversation.

The last post was meant to correct what you seem to have interpreted by one of my paragraphs, now you are on some other topic saying that its "The point".

You keep bring up "how to turn a base", when the only reason I brought up capture points, is because once secondary things are now attached to them.

It's likely my fault.

[Xyntech]

I'm thinking you are just talking past me at this point. I don't even know where to begin with all the assumptions and misinterpretations in your post. I'm not sure you are reading anything I am saying, or tracking the conversation.

The last post was meant to correct what you seem to have interpreted by one of my paragraphs, now you are on some other topic saying that its "The point".

By "the point," I was referring to the whole gist of the thread. The thread doesn't read so much like a list of helpful suggestions for how the game could be improved even further, beyond what it and PS1 currently does, it comes off more as a condemnation of PS2 being shallow with very few important objectives for non zerg minded groups to carry out to make sure their empire wins.

Maybe you just lack tact and communication skills. Just try to be more constructive if that's your goal. Or keep doing what your doing, and I'll keep arguing why the current design looks promising, because that's really all that either of us can do until we get into beta, right? As I've said, I have no problem with tossing suggestions back and forth, but I'll be happy to vocally disagree if you want to smack talk what they've done with PS2 before we've tested it on a larger scale, first hand.

I assure you that I am reading and comprehending what you are saying, I just don't agree with a lot of your assessments.

You keep bring up "how to turn a base", when the only reason I brought up capture points, is because once secondary things are now attached to them.

Yes, but those secondary things are still secondary objectives. My point with control points was that we don't need to capture every single one. In the first game, there was only one capture point, so of course you needed to take it, but we'll be perfectly fine taking 4 out of 6 points (or less) in PS2. So in a hotly contested battle where you can't capture and hold every point, which ones will you prioritize?

I'll tell you which ones the zerg will probably prioritize; whichever one is closest to them. That probably won't be the best one to target in a lot of cases.

Essentially, the worst that this change does is encourage the zerg to take some of those side objectives. Team players will still be better at it, and there will be other side objectives for them to do as well such as tracking down and destroying enemy Galaxy spawn points for example. So what's the big problem? That the zerg may actually be slightly less useless this time? Believe me, that won't diminish the importance of team work and strategic gameplay in the slightest.

[SergeantNubins]

PS1 had 2 capture types.. LLU and what amounts to king of the hill in gameplay terms. You had 1 location to hold to capture the base in either (+the llu on that type). You could increase your chances of holding that point by knocking out the spawns or the gen.. so tahts 3 locations. The new style has multiple locations to take and hold.. how is that less tactical?

Watch the e3 streams, particularly day 2, where you can hear the dev who was leading the NC organising the NC side to take or hold different capture points based on the score. The NC won most of the rounds because they were tactically taking and holding the right capture points (for example, one there was one instance where they were 1 ticket behind the TR, very close to the end of the scale, each faction had 1 capture point, the NC gal dropped and held the TR point at the right time, the TR had no points, the next tick went through, NC gained 2, TR gained 0 and the NC won).

You are also just looking at facilities, the game isn't just about caputring facilities, resources are gained from all the hexes and there are mutliple types of structure spread across the map.

I was concerned that there were not generators to take and hold and things like that, at first, but watching the E3 streams made me realise that this game seems easily as deep tactically speaking as PS1, its just we are gonna need to come up with some different tactics to amange the different aspects here.

[CutterJohn]

Sounds like some people want overpowered tech denial back. Hey, lets use a single squad and effectively 'destroy' every tank, skyguard, lib, reaver, gg, etc that the enemy wants to spawn for the next 5 to 15 minutes. Bonus points for it being easy to get to and completely undefended because its on the other side of the continent.

:lol:

[Pyreal]

I would like to see additional goals that change up the gameplay.

Hacking
Viruses
Gens
ANTS

that kind of peripheral stuff that goes into a base capture rather than 'stand on point b for 354secs'.

[SergeantNubins]

Sounds like some people want overpowered tech denial back. Hey, lets use a single squad and effectively 'destroy' every tank, skyguard, lib, reaver, gg, etc that the enemy wants to spawn for the next 5 to 15 minutes. Bonus points for it being easy to get to and completely undefended because its on the other side of the continent.

:lol:

The skill was in holding the gen, not blowing it up in the first place :)

Blowing a tech gen and holidng it successfully was an example of how a tactically minded and disciplined squad could make an effective impact on the battle away from the zerg. 15 minutes would be a short hold, if they would good they should hold it until they run out of ammo.

[Xyntech]

The skill was in holding the gen, not blowing it up in the first place :)

Blowing a tech gen and holidng it successfully was an example of how a tactically minded and disciplined squad could make an effective impact on the battle away from the zerg. 15 minutes would be a short hold, if they would good they should hold it until they run out of ammo.

This is where I see some elements of the Zurvan AMP Station style capture system in PS2 working very similarly to some of the PS1 tactics. If there is a capture point in some highly defensible location which also provides some tactical bonus, such as disabling a vital system in the base while that console is hacked, I could see having a team hold that capture point for as long as possible, even if they were unable to actually capture the base as a whole.

They would essentially only be holding one of 6 capture points, so it would be relatively easy for the enemy to resecure control of the facility by the time the hack went through, but the team defending that one node could immediately rehack the node once the timer ran out and permanently shut down that one major system in that base.

Obviously it would depend on both the affected system being critical enough that it was worth denying to the enemy, as well as it's node location being in a defensible enough area. If both of those were the case though, I could easily see a team holding out in an area, very similar to a team holding a gen room, in order to diminish the enemies defensive capabilities long enough that the rest of your team can slowly make some headway against the facility and eventually push into it.

There is definitely plenty of room and ideas to expand the depth of the game though. I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of optional, but tactical and useful things that class specific abilities could accomplish as well. I'd love to see all sorts of small crawlspaces and side passages that can only be accessed by an advanced hacker Infiltrator, or other shit along those lines. I'd like to see critical game mechanics like hacking a control point stay as something that almost anyone can do, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be more optional stuff that is still very useful that only certain classes could pull off.

[Aurmanite]

I'm thinking you are just talking past me at this point. I don't even know where to begin with all the assumptions and misinterpretations in your post. I'm not sure you are reading anything I am saying, or tracking the conversation.

The last post was meant to correct what you seem to have interpreted by one of my paragraphs, now you are on some other topic saying that its "The point".

You keep bring up "how to turn a base", when the only reason I brought up capture points, is because once secondary things are now attached to them.

It's likely my fault.

Xyntech addressed almost every one of your concerns and provided examples of why they are likely non issues. You response was simply "screw you guys I'm going home."

The point of all this discussion is that Planetside 2, like Planetside, is going to be what you...we...make it. If you truly believe that there were more 'war game' elements in the original, I question your ability to objectively interpret the information we have been given up to this point.

If your position is that losing destructible terminals makes the game less teamwork orientated and tactical, despite the addition of the resource, hex, and command systems... Perhaps going home is your best option.

[Gandhi]

Sounds like some people want overpowered tech denial back. Hey, lets use a single squad and effectively 'destroy' every tank, skyguard, lib, reaver, gg, etc that the enemy wants to spawn for the next 5 to 15 minutes. Bonus points for it being easy to get to and completely undefended because its on the other side of the continent.

:lol:
I actually kind of liked that system... I mean it was a bit too easy to hold a gen since they only had one entrance, but I don't have a problem with one squad denying advanced tech to a whole continent. It made it more of a tactical "thing" that had to be dealt with, rather than a simple matter of re-hacking a console every 2 minutes or some similar mechanic like that.

[Xyntech]

I actually kind of liked that system... I mean it was a bit too easy to hold a gen since they only had one entrance, but I don't have a problem with one squad denying advanced tech to a whole continent. It made it more of a tactical "thing" that had to be dealt with, rather than a simple matter of re-hacking a console every 2 minutes or some similar mechanic like that.

If they do anything like having regions on a continent that give bonuses when you control all hexes in the region (sort of like continental bonuses from the first game), I could totally see a team picking a highly defensible tower or outpost and holding out in it to deny the benefit to the enemy.

I'd love to see more of this kind of stuff.

[The Degenatron]

WAIT WAIT WAIT!!

This isn't going to be a Hidden Objects game?!

Wow, did I have it wrong!

[GuyFawkes]

Xyntech addressed almost every one of your concerns and provided examples of why they are likely non issues. You response was simply "screw you guys I'm going home."

The point of all this discussion is that Planetside 2, like Planetside, is going to be what you...we...make it. If you truly believe that there were more 'war game' elements in the original, I question your ability to objectively interpret the information we have been given up to this point.

If your position is that losing destructible terminals makes the game less teamwork orientated and tactical, despite the addition of the resource, hex, and command systems... Perhaps going home is your best option.

Exactly , thats why I suggested he make constructive suggestions that the devs might take note of .

Back to the title 'you need to make this a war game first,before anything else' . I actually disagree with this . Without the basic building blocks ie combat mechanics and depth , which the devs are rightly concentrating on, any notion of a meta game is defunct.

Thats not dismissing the meta game ,it is very important. But the basics must come first to make the meta game worth fighting for.

If you make the most amazing tactical game ever , but if the combat is equivalent to 2 people meeting in a hallway and they each roll a dice to see who wins it gives no reward for individuals to keep trying.

This isn't about esports in any way. I see that as a diversion from the main theme of the game. But if you get the combat right first you can expand and add any multitude of tactical stuff on top of that and have a good game because the foundation is right in the first place.

[The Kush]

Right now, from all accounts, you have a great gun play model. Now, you need to add in the elements that made PS1 a tactical, team based, war game.

Right now, as it stands, it looks to be more of a large session based game in its design.

A bunch of people "Playing alone, together", all going to control point "B" does not make this a team based game. Its simply the bare minimum.

2c

Agreed. PS1 was great because of the tactical aspects and teamwork required. This needs to be carried on in some way to PS2.