The state of PS2 and what needs to change

[Natir]

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/the-state-of-ps2-and-what-i-feel-must-change.95207/

Planetside 2 continues to be a fundamentally good game; it still has problems which prevent it from being truly great. This post is going to be long but I would really appreciate it if you read it, commented on it and offered your opinions and support.

BATTLE FLOW - WHERE IS IT?

The big problems which must be addressed are the how battles flow across a continent, universal player annoyances which detract from the game play, and when you’re fighting over a base in Planetside 2, the big problem right now lies in the aftermath of the actual fighting when the attacker begins camping the defender inside the spawn rooms. This creates a situation with guys outside the shield and the guys inside the shield, both waiting to just snag some cheesy kills. The giant problem with this is that there can be just one guy inside that invulnerable spawn room and the attackers still must camp it; after all, that one defender can repair the SCU and the generator as soon as the attackers leave to actually do something productive. It’s not that the attackers want to camp him, it’s that they have to camp him.

My suggestion here is to implement a “pain field” once the SCU gets destroyed. Specifically, with the destruction of the SCU, a pain field would turn on inside the spawn room and push any remaining defenders out of it. No more motivation for the defenders to get cheesy kills while the capture timer slowly runs down. The reason it is essential to kick defenders out of the cheesy spawn room camp is actually two fold; in addition to ending the unproductive requirement for attackers to camp the spawn, it contributes to the overall flow of battle when combined with my next suggestion. To set the scenario up, the SCU gets destroyed, the pain fields turn on and kick the defenders out, but then what happens?

In the current game, the defenders are dispersed all over the continent by virtue of the fact that they have a plethora of redeployment options to choose from. This seemingly positive example of improved player choice actually contributes to the flow of battle and thus the overall player experience. Planetside 2 is a game about big battles, and players want to be in a big battle as often as possible. When the defenders are allowed to disperse all over the continent, they destroy the flow because there are too many options to have a centralized fall back point where a new defense can be mounted.

Whenever a large defending force is destroyed, the attackers win both the facility and a large degree of momentum. The defenders, on the other hand, are thrown all over the place and unable to mount an effective defense, or an effective attempt at a re-secure, from another territory.
I would like to clarify what I mean by momentum actually. Momentum, as I see it exhibited in this game, is gained by the attackers because the defenders continually get dispersed by each territory they lose due to the current deployment mechanics. Thus, as the defenders continue to lose in increasing magnitude, they end up abandoning the idea of defending altogether. To put it simply, it’s a failure spiral for them because there are less defenders available in the relevant territories each time due to the dispersion effect I just described. Eventually, the attackers not only don’t get the big fights they want, but it gets as bad as being relegated to ghost hacking an empty territory.

My suggestion for this is to change the deployment options to only adjacent territories which you are physically connected to via the map plus the warp gate. The reason for this is simple: it will create a more focused fall back point for the defense and a clear avenue of attack which even a new or casual player will be able to easily identify. As an example, let’s say you are TR attacking Quartz Ridge and push the NC defenders out. The NC will have the option to re-spawn at Indar Comm Array, Indar Excavation site, or the warp gate. This will help to create a real front, but we’re not done just yet.

In order to help facilitate both the death of the boring spawn room camp, and the creation of the front I just described, we must install SCU’s in every facility in the game. As it stands now, small outposts do not have SCU’s; once again, you are forced to camp the enemy inside the spawn rooms, promoting that cheesy gameplay which isn’t fun for anyone.

My suggestion would function the same way as it does in a big base: pain fields would activate and kick defenders out upon the SCU’s destruction. Keep in mind, SCU’s do not have to overload quickly. Some of us probably remember back in the early days of beta when every outpost had an SCU when they were destroyed by simple gunfire. The reason they were removed back then was because they were destroyed too quickly; they changed the system, however, and the current overload system for SCU’s and generators works great in the current game.

With SCU’s added to every facility in the game and utilizing the current, effective overload system, a secondary objective will be created at every facility which encourages more tiered and focused gameplay. Secondary objectives are incredibly important for this game, especially with regards to facilities.

Secondary objectives are extremely important for fun. We joke around about the “spawn camp metagame” as the only current objective for an attacker is to push defenders into the spawn room and camp them there. While the defenders are waiting for cheap kills, they’re not falling back and setting up defenses; this goes back to the dispersion and flow problems.

Let me give another example to highlight how I envision this unfolding. Let’s say the TR are attacking the VS at Feldspar Canyon. The TR push, end up assaulting the SCU, and finally destroy it. Painfields activate in the tower and the defenders are pushed out and have to choose where to spawn. As the only friendly territory connected with Feldspar Canyon is Old Auraxium mines; this means the VS have the option to spawn at Old Auraxium Mines or the warp gate.

What this does is promote a direction, a flow, to the battle. The TR will know that the VS are at Old Auraxium Mines and the VS will know that the TR are coming to Old Auraxium Mines. Both sides know they will get their fight at Old Auraxium Mines.

This is still not enough, however. We want battles to last, but we also want them to be stable. What this means is, having random factors, such as the influence system in its current implementation, suddenly and for reasons a player fighting inside a territory cannot fathom, suddenly swing the capture timer in one direction or another is bad for the game. The biggest culprit in a base capturing too quickly is the influence system.

THE INFLUENCE SYSTEM - IT HAS TO GO
The influence system serves an archaic purpose which no longer has any meaning in Planetside 2. In the older days of Planetside 2, you could capture any territory on the continent; the only thing stopping this from getting completely out of hand was the influence system. Basically, it made territories on the other end of the continent take too much time to capture. Nobody liked this system so in an attempt to create a front line hex adjacency was added. Due to this there is a marked lack of need for the influence system.

The influence system creates uncertainty; too many variables involved in base capture time hurt game play. In order for there to be a proper defense of a facility, there needs to be a static time to act. My suggestion for this is simple: I would remove influence affecting time to capture. In addition, I would remove the current “2 of 2” and “6 of 6” mechanic for point capture. Every facility needs a flat time to capture; this cannot be stressed enough.

Having a standardized capture time allows the defenders to know how much time they have for reinforcements; it gives them a countdown with which to gather a counter attack and push out.

Having a standardized capture time allows the attackers to know how much time they have left with which to take the facility.

Having a standardized capture time allows the players back in the warp gate to know if they have a shot to fly out and join the battle, to join the attack or the defense, or if they are just wasting their time.

These four changes of pain fields, adjacency spawning, SCU’s for every facility, and standardized capture times will go a long way towards creating a semblance of a “front line” in Planetside 2, but we’re not done yet. The front line is important, especially for new players, which brings me to getting those new players into the fight as quickly as possible.


INSTANT ACTION, GETTING INTO THE FIGHT - JOE CASUAL IS THE FRONT LINE
Right now, the biggest problem for a new player is obvious to everyone: they can’t find fights. A new player just wants to log in, find a fight, and get stuck in with the rest of the guys with as little effort as possible.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to do this; instant action is on a 15 minute cool down and is like roulette: sometimes it takes you to a good fight and sometimes it takes you to absolutely nowhere and then you’re stuck with it on cool down for 15 minutes.

My solution for this is simple: take the cool down off of instant action. Yes, I’m saying instant action should have no cool down.

Imagine an instant action with no cool down, but the player is unable to pick where he or she will go. The system will check where the player is needed and drop them there.
Let me reiterate this: instant action should put you where you are needed, not where you want to go. You should be placed wherever the system puts you, and that should always be into a fight. That’s not all either; a personal way point should automatically be placed on an objective (shield generator, SCU, .etc.) which directs the new or casual player to a place where he or she can make a difference.

After all, the point of instant action should be for the new, casual, or solo player to easily get into a fight and enjoy the game. Outfits, like my own, should never be able to coordinate by abusing the instant action button (like we currently do). Squads and platoons are able to organize and form up for transport; instant action is not for them.

Let’s sketch the scenario out with all the elements I’ve outlined so far so as to detail what a new player experiences.

A player presses instant action.

That player is instantly dropped into a fight as a defender for a facility.

After a period of fighting the attackers finally take down the SCU, the pain fields go on, and the new player is moved with the rest of the defenders to the next defensible location.

Having the system come together like this enables a new player to clearly see a vision of where the front lines are even as they shift. Basically, too many options are confusing and create uncertainty, especially for the new player.

Getting new players, casual, and solo players into the fight is pivotal in retaining players in this game. Everyone knows that it’s too hard to find and stay in a fight, but this will ensure a player can always find a fight.

Going back to what I hinted at earlier, your casual players are your front line. It needs to be very simple for them to get into a fight and stay in a fight. That’s why the casual player plays; he won’t be concerned with the eventual metagame or trash talk going on between outfits. He just wants to get stuck in and have a good time and instant action needs to be a tool for helping him accomplish that every time he presses that button.

I will return to drop pods later, but insofar as instant action is concerned, the primary thing here is to make sure players get stuck in as soon as possible.

INDARSIDE - BEING STUCK ON THE WORST CONTINENT SUCKS

The main plague here is Indar. The entire continent of Indar is a mess. Indar was the very first continent in Planetside 2, but it was a failed experiment. There are too many hexes, no flow, and, consequently, tons of territory where combat is never seen. The base design is poor, the map design itself is poor; simply, everything about Indar is terrible right now.

To make matters worse, we’re stuck on Indar 7 nights a week.

While the necessary changes to Indar might warrant their own book, I will focus on few particularly onerous problems.

First of all, the Crown needs to be destroyed. Well, not removed, but its current implementation needs to be obliterated. It must be easier to attack; it’s too much of a productivity vacuum for every faction involved in attacking or defending it. Perversely, despite the fact that every faction naturally rushes to it, the faction holding it is doomed to lose the entire continent. Meanwhile, attackers who assault it are doomed to be farmed. When two empires are thus engaged, the remaining empire is sentenced to attack empty hexes. Therefore, the only time a faction captures a continent is when the other two are at the Crown.

The Crown was fun for the first few months, but right now it is the biggest hurdle to establishing Indar as a fun continent to wage war on.

I have a couple of suggestions for the Crown which borrow from what I was saying about facilities earlier. Most importantly, we need to add an SCU into the Crown. If you have an SCU, you can Gal Drop, create an organized push towards the SCU and either destroy it or at least pull defenders back from the front line to defend it. If you can’t stop people from spawning at the Crown, you will never take it from a non-trivial defense. In other words, the only time the Crown is captured now is when it’s empty or when the attackers attack with such a large number of players that it’s incredibly inefficient.

The Crown only started to become an issue when SCU’s were removed from outposts; if we put SCU’s back into the Crown in the manner I described previously, it will solve a lot of its issues. Move that SCU north of the Charlie point building and move the spawn room all the way on to the east side and we’re done. Currently, that spawn room deploys the defenders right where they die at the entrance; you have to give them a run time.

The Crown was a good design, but it was too good. Split Peak Pass on Amerish, however, is a better design. Split Peak has a northern side with secondary objectives and a southern side with vehicle terminals and the spawn room. The attackers can fortify the northern side and begin a great battle for both the attackers and defenders.

Split Peak Pass is hard to take, but it can be done without overwhelming force. The Crown, on the other hand, demands so many players that the rest of the continent must be virtually abandoned in order to take it.

To wrap the Crown up, it needs to be able to be captured by the average player so the population can move on to other points. Remember, the casual is the front line, and if the entire front line is vortexed into the crown, the front never moves.

Leaving the Crown behind, let’s talk about Indar’s hexes very briefly. Indar has a lot of hexes which make no sense. In fact, you could remove the entire upper canyon portion on the lower east and no one would notice. There is very little fighting in this and other parts of Indar.

As a matter of fact, ask yourself: when was the last time you fought a real battle over NS Refinery? Spec Ops Training Camp? Skydocks? How about that massive bridge leading to Reagent Rock Garrison? I'm talking serious fights, not silly events or skirmishes.

The better question to perhaps ask is: why would you fight there at all? There is no flow which leads players there and there is no point. Those territories should be combined into a bigger hex or just flat out removed.

Keeping with this theme of hex removal, the tiny hexes at the southwest gate need to also be removed; Arc Bio Engineering and NS Salvage also must be mercy’d. There is no point to them other than as a “last stand point” for when a faction is about to be warp-gated. The entire faction then proceeds to cram into one of those tiny hexes for their last stand causing the server to struggle for everyone on the continent.

Those are a few changes I think will go a long way towards helping Indar, but I don’t think anything short of a complete overhaul will save it. The continent needs to be taken down, completely reworked, and then put back on. In its current form, I don’t think anyone would miss not being able to play on Indar ever again.

If Indar is an example of what a continent should never be, then Amerish is an example of what every other continent could learn from. Change Indar to be more like Amerish and it will be saved.

[Natir]

MERGERS NOT TRANSFERS - THIS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF PLANETSIDE

I’m not going to pretend to know the business side of merging; whatever downsides there are from an investor’s, financial point of view are things which I admit complete ignorance to.

From a player point of view however, I couldn’t want anything more than server mergers.

In Planetside 2, the content is the players. Because of this, the game is not enjoyable with a low population.

Unlike other MMO’s where developers slave away at designing scripted encounters with plot and AI for players to quickly sweep through, Planetside 2’s appeal is that the players make all the content and you can never really exhaust that content as long as they are there.

Each continent can hold 2000 people; in essence, they are a server unto themselves. We have three continents, which mean 6000 players per listed server. With the continents in mind, that means we essentially have 42 servers in the game.

That’s far too much for the game’s current population to support; in fact, it was too much for the game to even launch with!

My suggestion here, as a player and keeping in mind that I do not pretend to know the technical or financial aspects, is that you need to merge servers as soon as possible. Make it one per coast and just let it go.

New players aren’t going to stay when they log in and see a ghost town. If you are worried about growth, keep in mind that this game doesn’t have the capability to grow exponentially like, for example, League of Legends. In fact, everyone points to League of Legends in these discussions so let’s compare it here.

League of Legends can essentially run on a Tandy; it’s a simple MOBA style game that’s easy for everyone to pick up and play. Planetside 2, on the other hand, cannot run on low-end machines from 5 years ago at all and is hard both for new players to pick up and simply comprehend.

Because of this dichotomy, you will not see the exponential growth enjoyed in Planetside 2 that League of Legends enjoys. Worse, if you do not make haste to merge the servers, you will not see any growth at all. You will exacerbate the problem of low population and cause it to spiral further.

Let me paint a picture of how I personally evaluate a new MMO.

When I start a new MMO, I join the high population servers; I don’t join low population servers, or even medium population. When I see 15 servers at low population, I see a dead game. Yet, when I see 4 servers all at high population, I see a game which is alive, vibrant, and worth my time.

If I’m new to a game, log in and see an empty server, I say, “Why should I play this game? No one else is playing!” and promptly log off, uninstall, and never play again. Again, if I see 4 servers and they’re all full of players, I’m probably going to play the game.

Now, server transfer tokens can happen, but they can’t happen unless you already have servers that are high or full. If you do it now, you will create a brand new problem with the game.

For example, what about the guys who roll their characters on Genudine? They spent money on their characters, but their purchases are only good for one character per server. The money they spent on that character is now worthless because no one plays on Genudine. Even assuming purchases are expanded to account-wide, you’re going to ask them to pay more money just to move to their certed character to a server where they can play the game? That’s ridiculous! It’s not their fault that they created characters on a server which would become a ghost town; there were too many servers at launch.

Worse, if I get transfer tokens made available to me, I’m going to wonder: is my server going to die too? Are people going to begin an exodus to another server? What if I use these tokens and choose incorrectly? Am I going to be playing “musical server” with my cash?

With all of this, you must also keep in mind that it was revealed by Mr. Smedley in a PC Gamer article that only 10% of the Planetside 2 player base actually pays money to play this game. Diehard players like myself will pay to get to where the action is, but the 90% of players who do not pay and may be hurt by this will simply stop playing the game altogether. Players are the content and, thus, they are the most valuable commodity in this game.

You must mercy the servers one by one; merge them and only then offer transfer tokens. As a player and not as a business analyst, I say that merged servers are absolutely vital for the life of this game.

MERGERS NOT TRANSFERS - THIS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF PLANETSIDE

I’m not going to pretend to know the business side of merging; whatever downsides there are from an investor’s, financial point of view are things which I admit complete ignorance to.

From a player point of view however, I couldn’t want anything more than server mergers.

In Planetside 2, the content is the players. Because of this, the game is not enjoyable with a low population.

Unlike other MMO’s where developers slave away at designing scripted encounters with plot and AI for players to quickly sweep through, Planetside 2’s appeal is that the players make all the content and you can never really exhaust that content as long as they are there.

Each continent can hold 2000 people; in essence, they are a server unto themselves. We have three continents, which mean 6000 players per listed server. With the continents in mind, that means we essentially have 42 servers in the game.

That’s far too much for the game’s current population to support; in fact, it was too much for the game to even launch with!

My suggestion here, as a player and keeping in mind that I do not pretend to know the technical or financial aspects, is that you need to merge servers as soon as possible. Make it one per coast and just let it go.

New players aren’t going to stay when they log in and see a ghost town. If you are worried about growth, keep in mind that this game doesn’t have the capability to grow exponentially like, for example, League of Legends. In fact, everyone points to League of Legends in these discussions so let’s compare it here.

League of Legends can essentially run on a Tandy; it’s a simple MOBA style game that’s easy for everyone to pick up and play. Planetside 2, on the other hand, cannot run on low-end machines from 5 years ago at all and is hard both for new players to pick up and simply comprehend.

Because of this dichotomy, you will not see the exponential growth enjoyed in Planetside 2 that League of Legends enjoys. Worse, if you do not make haste to merge the servers, you will not see any growth at all. You will exacerbate the problem of low population and cause it to spiral further.

Let me paint a picture of how I personally evaluate a new MMO.

When I start a new MMO, I join the high population servers; I don’t join low population servers, or even medium population. When I see 15 servers at low population, I see a dead game. Yet, when I see 4 servers all at high population, I see a game which is alive, vibrant, and worth my time.

If I’m new to a game, log in and see an empty server, I say, “Why should I play this game? No one else is playing!” and promptly log off, uninstall, and never play again. Again, if I see 4 servers and they’re all full of players, I’m probably going to play the game.

Now, server transfer tokens can happen, but they can’t happen unless you already have servers that are high or full. If you do it now, you will create a brand new problem with the game.

For example, what about the guys who roll their characters on Genudine? They spent money on their characters, but their purchases are only good for one character per server. The money they spent on that character is now worthless because no one plays on Genudine. Even assuming purchases are expanded to account-wide, you’re going to ask them to pay more money just to move to their certed character to a server where they can play the game? That’s ridiculous! It’s not their fault that they created characters on a server which would become a ghost town; there were too many servers at launch.

Worse, if I get transfer tokens made available to me, I’m going to wonder: is my server going to die too? Are people going to begin an exodus to another server? What if I use these tokens and choose incorrectly? Am I going to be playing “musical server” with my cash?

With all of this, you must also keep in mind that it was revealed by Mr. Smedley in a PC Gamer article that only 10% of the Planetside 2 player base actually pays money to play this game. Diehard players like myself will pay to get to where the action is, but the 90% of players who do not pay and may be hurt by this will simply stop playing the game altogether. Players are the content and, thus, they are the most valuable commodity in this game.

You must mercy the servers one by one; merge them and only then offer transfer tokens. As a player and not as a business analyst, I say that merged servers are absolutely vital for the life of this game.

[Natir]

AMS NO DEPLOY ZONES AS WELL AS CLOAKING FIELDS - THEY'RE ESSENTIAL

Recently, the road map had a suggestion about no-deploy zones; it was down-voted on the part of poor presentation of whoever posted it, but no-deploy zones are vitally important to the flow of battle I was talking about earlier.

Planetside 1 didn’t need no-deploy zones because, even though you could deploy an AMS directly in the courtyard, you still had to get out and go inside the actual base to get to the objective. In Planetside 2, you can park an AMS directly on top of an objective; this gives the attackers too much of an easy numerical advantage by virtue of simple logistics; it takes the defender longer to get to the defensive position than the attacker when instead the reverse should be true.

A lot of what people complain about is that there are too many attackers and numbers count for too much for the defenders to make a real difference, but the real culprit here is the fact that an attacking force can vomit attackers directly onto an objective. This grossly amplifies the advantage they have in numbers. Instead of deploying 100 meters out and running those 100 meters to the objective, the attackers only need 0 meters.
Basically, distance acts as a natural filter to zerging. A platoon running across a field is easier to defend against than a platoon spawning directly on top of an objective like a shield generator. In fact, it’s more entertaining for both the attackers and defenders if there has to be a grand charge towards an objective. People lust for those infantry pushes they see on TV to be replicated in game; they’re fun. Because of this and because of how they add depth and extend otherwise short battles, no-deploy zones are absolutely essential to the game and should be added to every base.

Let me give an example of how things work now and how they would work with a no-deploy zone. As it stands in the game now, we get a Sunderer, load it up, drive it out to the objective, and deploy it right on top of the shield generator. Now, I have my guys spawning right where the fighting is at; literally on top of the critical point. In order to stop our attack, the defenders have to travel more territory than we, the attackers, do every time they respawn.

Instead, a no-deploy zone would mean that I would not be able to deploy 50 meters, at a minimum, next to an objective (shield generator, SCU, .etc). There has to be a front line both in terms of the overall continent and the facilities themselves. We have to be able to know the general direction of where our opponents are coming from. Right now, numbers provide too much of an advantage; far more than they should. No-deploy zones would go a long way towards thinning out the effect of numbers on a battle.

If such a mechanic is implemented, the basic no-deploy zone around a deployed AMS should be shortened from a 175 to a 125 meter radius. Defensive AMS’s would not be affected by no-deploy zones. A defensive AMS is something a defender sets up in case an SCU goes down or to quickly reinforce a lagging area critical to the facility’s defense.

The idea behind defensive AMS’s being immune to the no-deploy zone is that they provide an additional layer of fun and strategy to the game; it’s another objective for the attacker to take out. In the current game when you attack a Tech Plant, you attack the shield for the garage; 99% of the time, there is a defensive AMS parked inside. It’s good for the game because the players themselves set them up and dictate the strategy all through their placement. Player agency is important.

Again, as an attacker, my primary goal after those shields go down is to remove that defensive AMS, and that’s fun. As a defender, my goal is to remove the attacker’s AMS units, but unfortunately, that’s too easy right now. They die quickly, which is fine, but they need to have cloaking bubbles to make up for it.

That’s right, an AMS should have a cloaking bubble equipped as standard in order to make the “AMS hunt” more engaging.

The opposite suggestion, to make an AMS harder to kill by making it tougher is something we’ve already seen in Planetside 2. Back in Beta, the Galaxy was the AMS and it could take a hell of a beating. The only way for a small force to destroy it was to HART pod suicide it; otherwise, it never died.

You might say, “That’s good! It would be hard to kill in a huge zerg battle!” but what about small battles? You would need multiple squads to kill a toughened-up AMS and that would be GG for the defenders in a small battle.
A cloaking bubble, on the other hand, allows it to be defensible. You could blow it up, just as before, but you actually would have to send elements out to find it. This fosters coordination and adds a layer of fun to the tactical game of assaulting and defending a base.

Right now, you just see the AMS and C4 it; AMS dead, fight over. The cloaking bubble is an elegant solution precisely because it scales so well to both large and small battles. No longer is an AMS left out in the open, ripe for some random ESF to blow it up who just happens to be flying over. Being able to hide an AMS like this will create an interesting dynamic to the battle which all sides will be able to enjoy.


RANDOM ANNOYANCES - THESE PROBLEMS ARE SIMPLE FIXES THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY

There are too many random things that can annoy you in this game. One of which is the randomness; this is because there is no front line. Tying into what I was saying earlier, if you had a front line, you would have a sense of where people are coming from.

An example of the randomness is the drop pod; people can use them to spawn virtually from everywhere. There are too many random directions where people can show up because there is no front. Drop pods, such as those utilized by the improved Instant Action system I outlined earlier, should never deploy players inside a base. Instead, they should deploy players at the outskirts of the territory, such as in the direction of the friendly force’s push, to stop single players from randomly showing up from behind without them actually making the coordinated effort to do so (infiltrators, gal drops, .etc). It is already easy enough to capture a base we don't need pods coming in and putting soldiers right inside your base.

Let’s briefly talk about two mechanics which should be toned down or outright removed: screen shake and flinch.

In the case of the former, you have one grenade going off and it’s like the San Andreas fault exploded: the shake is so ridiculous that it rivals actual earthquakes. Every now and then, the shake is fine, but in the current game it is almost constant. Tone it down.

In the case of flinch, it’s a ridiculous mechanic which no one truly supports. It puts players with low rate of fire weapons at a huge disadvantage against players with high rate of fire weapons. It also gives too much of an advantage to the player who shoots first. The only advantage the person who shoots first should get is actually shooting first not keeping your opponent in the FPS equivalent of a stun lock.

Another annoyance is the slow recharge time on shield generators compared to the fast TTK (time to kill) of Planetside 2. In this game, your shields are your life. You are in trouble when your shields are down and are encouraged to stay away from combat in order to be effective 10 seconds later after the recharge.

So, what this means is, get hit by a sniper once and you have to wait 10 agonizingly long seconds to get back to the business of playing the game.

Some might suggest that players which do not enjoy spending 10 seconds doing absolutely nothing should invest in the shield capacitor suit modification, but that’s wrong-headed as you are pigeon holed into playing this game with flak armor. Instead, the current shields should work like the shield capacitor and the shield capacitor should further speed that new time up. You can’t have a game with a fast TTK and a very slow recharge time; it just frustrates players who want to get stuck in and play.

Speaking of how the flak armor upgrade is essential in order to be effective in this game, the absolutely mandatory certs in this game are ridiculous. Have you ever tried playing a different class which doesn’t have its flak suit fully certed up? You die instantly to the myriad of explosive options which populate this game’s battlefields at all times.

Grenade: dead.

HE Shell: dead.

Zephyr: dead.

Get it? Ordinance flat out kills too fast unless you have flak.

Whenever I have flak fully certed out, on the other hand, it feels right. You still die to ordinance, but it’s not instant; you have a chance to survive.

With that in mind, flak armor, as it is now fully certed, should be default to everyone. If a player then wants to be further impervious, investing in a flak armor suit modification would further increase his or her resistances to ordinance

Things such as flak armor are too overbearing; they’re too necessary. You have to suffer through the game, constantly dying instantly, to until you can get flak fully certed. That’s not a good experience for new players.

Speaking of Certification points, there is currently too much of a certification grind to this game. Certifications need to be streamlined; we can do this by adding more universal certifications to the game. Right now, if you want to cert out a character you must do so in a very clumsy way.

For example, if I buy Flak Armor on my Heavy Assault class, I cannot wear it on my Medic
unless I also cert for it there. Why is that? Why must I grind it on every class for every piece
of armor? That’s not fun and it’s boring. The answer is obvious: if you get it for one class, you
should get it for all of them.

To name just a few examples here, C4, Flak Armor, Grenade Bandoliers, all of these should
be universal and work across all classes. If I unlock C4 on my Heavy Assault, it only makes
sense that I should have it unlocked on my Medic. It already works this way on carbines across
Engineers and Light Assaults; pointless grinding should similarly be removed for all classes.

In fact, vehicle weapons suffer the same fate right now. Let’s say you are driving a Sunderer with a front and rear Fury; you have to unlock the upgrades for the weapons separately! No one is going to enjoy grinding the same Fury over and over again. This applies to a lot of weapons across a lot of vehicles; a bulldog unlocked on a galaxy should be unlocked on the liberator as well. Naturally, this logic should apply to the certs you apply to those weapons.

I’ve blasted a lot of the annoyances about suits for a while, but I want to move to turrets. For a long time, I was really against the concept of automated turrets, but now I realize that they are absolutely necessary for the game.


AUTOMATED TURRETS & BASE BENEFITS - HINDER GHOST HACKING, MAKE ME CARE ABOUT A BASE

I see a turret now and I laugh as I grab my free experience from blowing it up. A turret needs to be something you care about; they should, no they need, to be an important aspect of base assault and defense. Even now, the first things to die in a base assault are turrets and they don’t even do anything of worth. By making them automated, you could both give the defenders a little more of an edge in base defense, something they truly need in this game, and make turrets relevant.

While I wouldn’t ever allow turrets to lock on to infantry, tanks and aircraft should have to worry about them when approaching a base or facility. While whatever damage they are able to deal shouldn’t be able to do anything but deter players, they must still respect them as a credible threat.

This would create more of a “combined arms” mentality when attacking a base than exists now. Infantry would have to go in and then deal with the turrets so that the sieging vehicles could then approach.

A manned turret, on the other hand, needs to be upgraded significantly. With the cost of being stationary needs to come significant firepower and survivability when manned. Increase the amount of time it takes to overheat and decrease the amount of time it takes to cool down; the idea here is to make turrets a more important element of base defense. After the base satellites (towers, .etc) they should be the first target for the attackers.

Speaking of turrets and their heat, let’s talk about the benefits gained by owning a facility. Everyone is familiar with how pointless the advantage associated with owning an Amp station is. No one cares about turret heat reduction and no one ever will; they’re a tiny part of the game.

The only base benefit that almost matters is the tech plant’s, and that doesn’t even mean all that much. It only matters on continents like Esamir but nobody fights there anymore because this is IndarSide.

Instead, have all combat vehicles (not Sunderers, Galaxies, .etc) cost less resources across the board. Hinging upon this is a resource system that actually matters, but assuming vehicles cost twice as much as they do now, having a 50% reduction from owning a tech plant would be just one example.

I feel this is superior because, unlike right now, it doesn’t punish you or remove your ability to spawn your vehicle. If you lose one, it essentially makes it count as two combat vehicles instead of one.

The reason why you can’t restrict Sunderers is that they are the lifeblood of battle; they create battles and they cost more than a tank already.

Going back to Amp stations, have them give over shields to vehicles. If you are in a friendly hex out of combat, an amp station would allow you to recharge the over shield; this would apply to all vehicles.

Now, Biolabs. The benefit is so tiny that you never notice it. Make the current benefit be built into the game as default health regeneration and instead have the Biolab reduce the resources infantry need for their expendables.



(And since I just touched on resources for infantry, non-lethal options should cost less than the lethal options. For example, a frag grenade needs to cost less than a revive grenade.)


RESTRICTION IS GOOD - YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE UNTIL IT'S GONE

If there’s no restriction on something, people take it for granted. I go through tanks like nothing right now. If I run out of resources, I just go to another continent for 5 minutes and wait for them to replenish.

The word “restriction” has a negative connotation to it and I want to address that as restrictions are actually important to the game; this is extremely relevant to the entire concept of resources.

Restrictions are in fact good for the game. The main strategy in an RTS (real time strategy game) is to deprive your enemy of resources. In fact, it’s not just a crucial part of gaming, it’s also a crucial part of real life warfare. Thus, and especially because it has proven to be fun in gaming, it should be a major part of Planetside 2.

For anybody to care about something, it needs to be taken away from them. This is basic human nature.
If I want to care about resources, they need to be matter. They need to be able to be removed, to be taken away from me in order to care. If I don’t care, I’m never going to consider resources in the equation of where I look for fights.

A player should care about his tanks and, similarly, should care about his tanks getting taken away due to other player’s action. Let me give an example.

Let’s say I’m an air cav player; I really like pulling my Mosquitoes.

Let’s say the Skydock gives me a whole lot of resources to assist me in that endeavor; it lets me pull Mosquitoes at a pretty frequent rate (assuming resources matter).

Let’s say another player is sick and tired of getting rocket spammed by my buddies and I and our Mosquitoes. He or she gets a bunch of people together and try to take Skydock from us.

Since my source of frequent Mosquito pulling is threatened, I gather a bunch of my buddies and try and stop them. From there, the conflict could very well escalate; more people could get drawn in and suddenly we have a huge fight over a territory no one ever fights over all because some people wanted to stop the rocket spam and had a way to do it. As a result, a huge battle erupts which may engulf adjacent territories which nobody ever sees and everyone has a great time.

Once again this all hinges on a resource system that matters because right now it's a joke.

[Natir]

OUTFIT PLAY & COMMUNITY GROWTH - HELP US HELP YOU

Outfit leaders need better tools, recruitment options, and abilities to foster teamwork within the game. Solo play is fun and of course should be fun; it’s absolutely essential. Like I said earlier, the casual player should be the front line of the game. Really though, a casual player will eventually want something more. He’ll want to be a part of the organized operations he watches on streams and he should be given an easier way to find outfits which may provide him that.

As a leader, I would love a way to reach out to such individuals. As just one example, a bulletin board could be implemented; almost like a classified section in a newspaper. A player could open it up within the game’s interface and might see an ad, and just using my outfit as an example, saying, “The Enclave: Looking for Team Oriented Players!” He or she could then click on it, bringing up (within the game’s UI) a page with more details, such as showing the player what the outfit is about and ways to get into contact with us.

While outfit leaders would be able to passively recruit this way, we also need the ability to actively pursue players so that our outfits can grow. As an example, a way for players who want to be found could be by tagging themselves. This tag would enable outfit leaders to find and contact them directly.

This is more important than just allowing outfits to grow: communities are the lifeblood of games like this. In fact, a lot of players play video games just for the communities that they’ve integrated themselves into as a result of playing games.

Look at World of Warcraft, for example. It’s a stale game, but it’s populated even today because of the community. Even I continued to play World of Warcraft for a long time, well past when it was dead to me, all of because of the connections I made to people in-game.

In Planetside 2, however, it’s different. You have to be a part of an organized outfit in order to make a difference and connect with people. In fact, let me tell you about my experience in Planetside 1.

I logged into the game, got my certs, my rexo armor, my cycler, my AV, and responded to a guy who was looking for squad members to go assault a tower; he was a completely random guy who was not part of any outfit.
Also, keep in mind, all of this was done entirely through text without any of the advanced features (such as voice chat) which Planetside 2 currently offers.

When the guy picked me up to join the squad, I explained that I was completely new to the game. He proceeded to show me the ropes by telling me what we were doing, why it was relevant, and what I should do to be effective. We then proceeded to assault the tower; that was my first gal drop and I had a blast. I want to repeat, I learned how to play the game entirely by chance because some random guy, all through text, was willing to show me the ropes. It was my first Planetside experience and that experience, 9 years ago, led me to create the Enclave.

There are lots of people like that guy from back then willing to show new players the ropes, but they need more tools with which to do it. Tools are better now, but not good enough. Keep in mind, if I had not gone through that experience, I might not be playing today. It is absolutely essential that players have the tools they need to get players into that level of experience and hook them on the game.

Remember what I said earlier, players are the content. Why not utilize them as the tutorial as well when they are more than happy to do so?

Give a public squad leader a way to advertise his or her squad specifically for players to get into the game.

Additionally we need easier controls. I run what I call “stream team” which is targeted towards playing with people who watch my game stream. I would run it more if I could make turning my squad into a platoon easier. For example, I should be able to open up my social menu, name a platoon, make the criteria, and allow it to just fill up. It needs to be simple to create, simple to join.

The acronym to live by here is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid).

To get new players into Planetside 2, our culture, our community as a whole, we need to have more tools.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with veteran players teaching new players how to play the game; in fact, that’s ideal. It’s the best way to get players into the game. Back in the old days, I would “pay it forward” by finding new players in VR training. I would walk them through the terminal system, how to make a “class” (such as they existed in Planetside), and how to play the game effectively all while recruiting them into the outfit. It was fun, it was something to do.

I would do the same in Planetside 2, but I don’t have the tools necessary to do it.
The community can do the heavy lifting here and foster new players, if we have the tools.


THE LATTICE SYSTEM - PLANETSIDE 2 NEEDS IT

This is the final part of my post but also the most important. A lot of the battle flow that I and so many other players so strongly desire could be accomplished by the reintroduction of the lattice system. It’s a quick and easy implementation that can be put in to accomplish what so many players in PS2 truly want and that’s structure. Players want structure, players want focus and players want a visual representation of their actions to be seen. Players also want a clear line of attack and defense. As you have probably gathered from this massive post PS2 is completely lacking in structure. It has no foundation and without foundation it can’t possibly grow. Continental conquest, a meaningful metagame, a dynamic and moving front line and everything else can’t possibly be achieved in PS2 without the structure provided by the lattice system.

The hex system has been tweaked, redone, reworked, rehashed and regurgitated and it is still a confusing mess. The hex system was a worthy effort but it is time for it to go and for us to return to the lattice system. What unique territory do players actually fight over in PS2? How many times do players fight over those tiny outposts in the middle of nowhere? They don’t. Most players view those little hexes to be an annoyance to capture and to defend so they won’t be missed since they’re already being ignored. The whole idea of the hex system was supposed to bring fights to every single outpost in the game but the reality is that not every outpost in the game is worth fighting over nor should they be made worth fighting over. Players naturally gravitate towards major facilities and large outposts and as a result of this the lattice system should further improve upon that and encourage such actions. If you provide us with a path of attack and line of defense you will see much more action, much less confusion on where to find the fight and a much better experience for players both new and old. Add structure and improve upon that structure and you’ll be able to make PS2 something more and make it the game it truly deserves to be.

I hope you enjoyed reading my post. Please add feedback and discuss it here. I feel that we, the community along with the developers of PS2 can turn this game into something amazing.

[OCNSethy]

Good god... is the DVD coming out soon?

Seriously, once I digest this, I get back to you :)

[BIGGByran]

Dude! tldr all of it. Read the last part, or the part I just quoted.

How many times do players fight over those tiny outposts in the middle of nowhere?
A lot of players do. I love fighting over these "tiny outpost in the middle of no where". A change of pace from fighting in the major places.
302 Found
is a good example of an amazing fight over a "tiny outpost." I had to favorite this video, it was too amazing not to.

Most players view those little hexes to be an annoyance to capture and to defend so they won’t be missed since they’re already being ignored.
I sure as hell will. I would hate PS2 if the only place to fight are Biodomes, Tech Plant, and Amp stations and nothing in-between. It would be like "Dude, didn't we just fight in a tech plant 5 mins ago and here we are at another tech planet. Omg someone shoot me."

The whole idea of the hex system was supposed to bring fights to every single outpost in the game but the reality is that not every outpost in the game is worth fighting over nor should they be made worth fighting over. Players naturally gravitate towards major facilities and large outposts and as a result of this the lattice system should further improve upon that and encourage such actions.
Not everyone wants to constantly fight in Major Facilities and Large Outpost. I would love to see more fights in the open, over hills and canyons, not always in amp stations, tech plants, or bio labs. The video above is a prime example of an awesome fight. Not all great fights happen in major facilities and large outpost. The game would suck if those are the only places you can get great fights.

If you provide us with a path of attack and line of defense you will see much more action, much less confusion on where to find the fight and a much better experience for players both new and old. Add structure and improve upon that structure and you’ll be able to make PS2 something more and make it the game it truly deserves to be.

-Players should already know where the major fighting is at by looking at their maps. You can clearly see by finding the blinking exploding miniature balls.
-By forcing "you must attack here" "defend here" you close the battlefield too much. And by doing so, you force small squads to fight in big battles if they don't want to. At the current system, small squad can deviate away from the zerg and take other territories and while the "big" fight between factions can take place at an amp staion. Small squads can flank the enemy and take other territories while the "defending zerg" is distracted by the "offensive zerg." So while the 2 zerg are fighting over 1 territory for an hour. the small squad is taking other territories.

[capiqu]

I agree with about 85% of the post. So i would like to see the flow battle be determined by regional spawning, spawn room pain field, scu at all outpost, instant action to front lines, Attacking AMS no deploy zones and cloaked ams.
I disagree with eliminating hexes on Indar and transfer of characters.

Yes cloak the AMS's , what else will we do with all the orbital strikes?

[Sifer2]

I read it, and was mostly nodding my head in agreement up until you got to the "random annoyances" bit. Then you go into a milliion little changes that don't necessarily have to do with battle flow, and kind of lost me. Also about the destroying the SCU making the spawn room have a pain field. I despise the pain fields personally. Just make the spawn room shield go down, and problem is essentially solved.

Attackers storm the room, and the fight is over instead of the peekaboo shield camp metagame. Though the funny thing is apparently SOE believes that is good gameplay as on the Roadmap they suggested destroying the SCU only increasing respawn times to make the "fight" last longer. They don't seem to get that the fight is no fun once the base is overrun anyway. It might as well be over so we can get to a better fight. If they really want longer fights they need to design better more defensible bases so it takes longer before it is overrun.

Speaking of which I agree about the whole no deploy zones on attacking Sunderers. The game at this time basically revolves around spamming Sunderers into the enemy base. So many the defense can't destroy them all. Then the fight is basically lost cause attackers have infinite respawns all over YOUR base. This is why only Biolabs are defensible atm. The Sunderers can't get up there to where the objectives are lol. If we don't do no deploy zones the only other solution is to limit the AMS functionality at the squad level. As in only your squad can spawn on the Sundy. That would make the SundyAMS less of an offensive super weapon. And would funnel the zerg more into the base spawns which would help create a less random front line, as you would know where the bulk of the enemy is spawning. Also makes taking over satellite spawn rooms a critical part of the attack strategy rather than just something you do for xp.


Edit: On the shields/flak bit. I disagree on shields. Getting shot should matter. If someone shoots you an you run around the corner you shouldn't immediately be all better after 2 seconds. Having shields at all is already a big departure from the original game where health didn't regenerate unless you had that implant. If you want that so much then play Medic an cert shield regeneration. As for Flak I agree Infantry needs higher base resistance to AOE explosives. Flak 5 by default is too much but something like Flak 2 or maybe 3 for the Assault class's being standard I could get behind.

[Hawgg]

I agree with most of this post.

Server merges are 100% crucial to the survival of the game.

We need to rally for this.

Perhaps make a "petition" thread, and get as many "signatures" (posts) on it as possible, lobbying for a server merge? SOE couldn't ignore it if we had enough. Someone do it!

[Mordelicius]

Only perused and didn't read it thoroughly. My thoughts:

Spawn Room 'pain field' - Just no. Spawn camping is already prevalent again even with the new spawn rooms. This will encourage it even further.

Adjacent Territory spawn only - I can see this being used to carve out the map, making consolidation even faster. Basically, cut off a portion and back hack everything. A better alternative is make spawning further away cost resources. Example, if I want to respawn at a Biolab far away, it would cost me infantry resources.

Instant Action - It already has long cooldown as it is. Imo, like my last suggestion. Make instant action cost resources as well. The more you use it, the more resources it cost. Remove the cooldown altogether but make it progressively more expensive, hence the resource starvation meta game will kick in.

Indarside - Indar is by far the best continent. Rather than bring it down a notch, the Devs should improve the other continents.

Mergers or Transfer - It's a business, they will sell it. It's quite standard in a realm vs. ream mmo too.

Sunderer no-deploy zone - If they are ever going to put forth a no-deploy mechanic, the onus is on the defender to make it so. The defenders have to do something to disable deployment of the Sunderer. But making it automatic will just ruin the flow of any fight. Part of benefit of Sunderer crashes/sneaking/parking is the unpredictability of the point of attack. Perhaps deploy a special Spawn jamming sunderer and within that (much smaller) radius, no enemy sunderer can park and spawn. Just call it spawn jamming. They can deploy but spawning is jammed.

A spawn jamming sunderer must have a much smaller radius than the a regular sunderer's promiximity limit, or else nobody will be able to spawn at all. But it will basically flip the ball on the attacker to kill this spawn jammer, which should be close by anyway.

Flinching - Someone said allow us only to flinch every 5 seconds. Agreed.

Flak Armor - It's part of their sidegrade system: either be strong against splash damage or get extra health, but not both.

[Natir]

Only perused and didn't read it thoroughly. My thoughts:

Spawn Room 'pain field' - Just no. Spawn camping is already prevalent again even with the new spawn rooms. This will encourage it even further.

If there are spawn room pain fields, wouldn't that get rid of the people inside the spawn room? So, if there is no one to camp the spawn room, how can someone spawn camp it?

[Chewy]

I got to say that I haven't read the entire thing yet but there is something I MUST speak about. And that is the screen shaking and flinching from damage.

They are NEEDED.

Like Sifer2 said in his edit "Getting shot should matter". In a game that has not only shield regen but health regen as well there HAS to be something to tell people getting bullets put into you is a bad thing. With those 2 things no one can go around and do the kinds of rambo shit that COD and other twitch shooters are known for. It may reduce the importance of snap aiming but it forces everyone to think before acting and gives players more options than just running up to a guy and blasting him without thinking. If people could just twitch about and win fights in PS2 then it wouldn't be PS2, but another clone of FPSs we've been playing again and again over the last some years.

If you're not mindful of where the enemy is and carelessly engage him then you are going to get shot! This isn't like the utter shit suppression that BF3 has where whiffing a guy makes him shot like shit. They are hitting a target and that target should have to deal with the fact he is getting an ass kicking. There are SO many tools one can get to help stop people from fucking a day. Find one that works for you.

I for one like to spam smoke at snipers, towers, turrets, 2nd floor doors/windows, and more or less anything I can to be a pain in the ass to the enemy. This blinds them so that they CAN'T shoot my team. Even if they have IR/NV scopes people run out of the smoke at the ranges I lob my infinite supplies. The only place I don't use smoke is indoors, that hurts us more than the enemy. Smoke indoors may give IR/NV users an edge, but everyone else is either fucking blind or camping it while spamming Q for a spot. The only times I bother to use smoke indoors is to lure people out or to make them look elsewhere. Pop a smoke at a side door and enter another or fill a room with smoke that you have no intent on entering. Piss someone off enough to make them hunt you down and they become easy prey.

[Obstruction]

hope you feel better after all that.

1. it's already useless enough to defend without making it more so/happen faster. how about put a pain field around the attackers instead? just as stupid.

2. if you hate indar so much stay off of it. the reason people fight there is that people fight there. create conflict on other continents (send half your outfit to play NC if you have to) and others will join.

3. the reason for servers is ping. and here's news, people already deleted characters on ghost town servers and sucked it up and moved, or quit. that's why its a ghost town. just like people move to indar (although not on all servers by the way).

4. if there were reason to defend something you wouldn't be able to get your lolsunderer that close. trust me. and making it invisible? please dude, let mommy cut the crust off your sandwiches too. if you want to defend an AMS send it with a mixed unit team capable of point defense against armor and air, and maybe teach your guys to kill LA and Engi's who just run up lol. i use a shotgun for that.

5. the rest of what you're talking about is basically crying about things you don't like. but you can't just go changing all of those things without understanding what even 1 minor change to those mechanics would mean. as much as it is an abused term guess what that is? it's metagame. if you change one of those mechanics you need to wait and see what the playerbase reaction will be. i'm not exactly against any one thing you listed but they can't just change it all and hope it doesn't ruin the game. 5a. remember star wars galaxies. 5b. think of it like a soup recipe: you don't just change 4 ingredients at once because then you can't figure out what it was that ruined which part of the flavor.

6. i agree that there should be a LFG flag and an in game player search by level, preferred class (time spent in class or player flagged), K/D, or whatever stats are available. even allow players to set personal comments in the search and/or flag playtimes and any other helpful search criteria or information. but this could be one short, simple post in the ideas section and not the ending of a really bad wall of text.

7. TL;DR most people don't react well to this kind of post. most people aren't going to read it dude. i did. and there is a really huge section in there where you copypasta'd it twice. and you said something like "mercy the servers" when you meant to say "merge". and you pasted it that way both times. just saying.

[Ironside]

seen the original post on the official forums,
don't know buzz and don't play on his server and i'm far to old to be a fanboy
but i'd really like to see this guy in 1on1 interview with higby, nailing him down on key issues.
All the higby interviews i seen he has it far to easy with no probing questions by someone who will go for the throat...set it up hamma ;)

PS2 as a shooter isn't a bad game, i usually jump in and fight in the zerg triangle of ti-crown-crossroads, it's a case of leave your brain at the door and have a bit of fun and rack up a few kills then log, that's how the games got me.

I can't help look at PS2 and use PS1 as my point of reference, which makes me think PS2 is way below the mark it should and could be at, i find most of the roadmap uninspiring, higbys interviews and comments lacklustre, to much emphasis on froth and not enough on the meat of the game, endless weapons released with each patch, don't get me wrong i know that's how they make their money and i've done my bit by buying cosmetics, weapons and a premium account (although that's all stopped now i won't be spending anymore on the game) but how many weapons do they want in the game, it's already saturated, there's more pressing matters to concentrate on.

The last thing that made me laugh and despair at the same time was they're looking to alter the run animations of each faction...Cmon ffs get a grip, no one gives a toss how each faction runs but it sums up this development team perfectly

[Thunderhawk]

Can someone summarize for me in bullet points what those Novels were about? :)

[Wahooo]

I don't think i'm every going to read that post, but perused the responses so far.

I'm going to just have to blindly agree with the OP because the 5 or so lines I did read made sense. I've finally been able to log on the game in prime time for my servers thinking that since i've been so far outside of primetime for months that was the problem I was having.

Nope. there is a never ending list of little things that just bother me every time I log in, and it appears this post covers many if not all of those.

[PredatorFour]

The crown wouldn't be an issue if there was a proper meta game ( need to go over here to cap that base etc..) and cont locking. Though i agree it is definately an issue like it is.

Just imagine if they merged servers right now, the pops would be quite big but people would be queuing for indarside and probably log off if they didn't like the other conts and play cod. Though on Miller there's generally decent fights on all conts but there's also alot of PS vets on that server too.

[Rothnang]

The main thing I agree on here is the AMS No Deploy zones.

I think the game would be substantially improved if instead of not allowing multiple sunderers to deploy next to each other they would make the no-deploy zone around 100-200 meters around every base.

That would make the game just a lot better, because you'd finally get at least some use out of the spaces between bases, instead of just having Sunderers rush across them and setting up spawnpoints right inside the base, so 95% of all the fighting always just takes place right in the bases, and never anywhere else.

Of course this isn't a popular opinion to have, because people don't want anything to reduce their convenience, and the current system is a huge convenience to them, but sometimes something is so over the top convenient that it takes away from the game.

Between drop pods and Sunderers there nothing that in any way makes it so that the attackers come from outside the base and the defenders come from inside. Everyone comes from inside the base, and it's a clusterfuck.

[Hmr85]

I agree with the bulk majority of what you wrote. I do not agree with the SCU in every base part. The idea of knocking out a SCU in every base which in turn flips on the pain field forcing players out is meh to me. There have been plenty of times on Connery we have been pushed back into the Spawn room only to have reinforcements show up or we max crash a point from spawn effectively reclaiming the base as a last ditch effort to save the facility.

Having it the way you are asking it to be setup puts a end to that. I am not a fan of it. If I am not mistaken SOE was mentioning having a increased spawn timer in the future if the SCU goes down. That way you can still spawn and fight.

With all that said above though, I completely agree on Server Mergers being a must. I also completely agree that the lattice system needs to make a comeback. I also agree something needs to be done with the Crown.

[ChrisLand]

Just want to chime in and say that this is a really good thread.

Most of the discussion is on the PS2 forums but please take the time to read this - it is actually worth it.

[psijaka]

You are covering way too much ground at once here, Natir, even your single OP is way too long (I'm not going to bother to read the follow up posts; life is too short. edit - and my lunch break is over).


BATTLE FLOW - WHERE IS IT?

My suggestion here is to implement a “pain field” once the SCU gets destroyed.


Your point about camping after the SCU has been taken down is valid, but is a fairly minor issue in the scheme of things. I don't like the suggestion to use pain fields to expell the defenders in this instance; much better to just drop the shields and let the attackers rush the few remaining defenders.

My suggestion for this is to change the deployment options to only adjacent territories which you are physically connected to via the map plus the warp gate.

Not a bad idea at all, but surely we get this to a certain extent anyway.

In order to help facilitate both the death of the boring spawn room camp, and the creation of the front I just described, we must install SCU’s in every facility in the game.

NO NO NO. Difficult enough to defend as it is; having 2 objectives to defend at a minor outpost is just way over the top. The way to minimise spawn camping at these outposts is through good base design. Take TI Alloys as an example; good spawn room design, tanks can't get near the spawn, "A" is indoors so free from tank/air spam, "A" is close to the spawn and the route is tank free. I've been involved in some excellent defences here, because SoE have got the design right. This is the way forward.

This is still not enough, however. We want battles to last, but we also want them to be stable. What this means is, having random factors, such as the influence system in its current implementation, suddenly and for reasons a player fighting inside a territory cannot fathom, suddenly swing the capture timer in one direction or another is bad for the game. The biggest culprit in a base capturing too quickly is the influence system.

THE INFLUENCE SYSTEM - IT HAS TO GO

I couldn't disagree more. The influence system is excellent, and introduces an extra level of strategy to the game. I don't want a game to be dumbed down to a level where I'm fighting a series of isolated battles (I could play domination mode in COD if I wanted that).

I -do- want a game where you have to take account of the bigger picture; and someone influencing a major battle by taking over an adjacent minor base is just the sort of thing that advances the game to a level beyoud COD/BF. Pity that more people can't grasp this.

The influence system creates uncertainty; too many variables involved in base capture time hurt game play.

Why are some people so afraid of the concept of uncertainty. This is full scale war, and it is entirely correct that things happening elsewhere in the war zone will have an impact upon the outcome of the battle that they are involved in. This is one of the things that makes PS2 stand out from the crowd (and there are a lot of shooters out there).

Having a standardized capture time -snip-
Standardisation is bad and leads to boredom; I want the battle to be different every time. Different levels of influence create interesting possiblities - posisble to capture or defend a base by only holding one of the three control points, for instance. A good commander will take accout of this.

INSTANT ACTION, GETTING INTO THE FIGHT - JOE CASUAL IS THE FRONT LINE
Right now, the biggest problem for a new player is obvious to everyone: they can’t find fights. A new player just wants to log in, find a fight, and get stuck in with the rest of the guys with as little effort as possible.

Agree with this; the instant action mechanics need to be improved, and place players where they will make a difference. Not sure about removing the cooldown though; could be abused by people repeatedly flitting around to where a base is about to be captured, to bag the easy XP.

INDARSIDE - BEING STUCK ON THE WORST CONTINENT SUCKS

The main plague here is Indar. The entire continent of Indar is a mess. Indar was the very first continent in Planetside 2, but it was a failed experiment. There are too many hexes, no flow, and, consequently, tons of territory where combat is never seen. The base design is poor, the map design itself is poor; simply, everything about Indar is terrible right now.-snip- Change Indar to be more like Amerish and it will be saved.

Again, I couldn't disagree more. Indar is the most popular continent, and this is because Indar is the best continent.

It makes NO SENSE whatsoever to change popular Indar so that it resembles the unpopular Amerish or Esamir. Why on earth would SoE do this?

They should, and hopefully do, recognise that Indar, with it's variations in terrain and outposts, and it's more complex Hex system, is a success.

Furthermore, they should recognise that the other continents, even beautiful Amerish, are failing in their current form, and they should be looking to implement a more complex hex system with more minor outposts to see if they can increase the popularity to Indar like levels (in conjunction with some server mergers - but that is another issue). At least, try this on Amerish.

[Rolfski]

Can someone summarize for me in bullet points what those Novels were about? :)

OP basically wants to force more structure and predictability into the game, which can be a double edged sword as it can also lead to more boredom.

[bpostal]

OP basically wants to force more structure and predictability into the game, which can be a double edged sword as it can also lead to more boredom.

I'd say heavy on the structure, not as much on the predictability.

That is, however, the problem with the hex mechanic and won't be fixed anytime soon.

[psijaka]

MERGERS NOT TRANSFERS - THIS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF PLANETSIDE
-snip-


I wouldn't be against mergers, but allowing multiple free transfers on a 24 hour cooldown for a fixed period would be a better option.

This would allow the most popular servers to emerge "organically" and allow an element of player choice. Less popular servers would quickly wither on the vine, and they could then be merged. And no need for tokens.

[CrimsonTemplar]

Your point about camping after the SCU has been taken down is valid, but is a fairly minor issue in the scheme of things. I don't like the suggestion to use pain fields to expell the defenders in this instance; much better to just drop the shields and let the attackers rush the few remaining defenders.

My thoughts exactly. There's something about storming the last enemy holdout, in a facility, which seems appealing. Either way, the problem of spawn-camping would ebb away. Otherwise I agree with Buzz on several well made points.

[Sobic]

INDARSIDE - BEING STUCK ON THE WORST CONTINENT SUCKS


The main plague here is Indar. The entire continent of Indar is a mess. Indar was the very first continent in Planetside 2, but it was a failed experiment. There are too many hexes, no flow, and, consequently, tons of territory where combat is never seen. The base design is poor, the map design itself is poor; simply, everything about Indar is terrible right now.-snip- Change Indar to be more like Amerish and it will be saved.

Every damn inch of Indar is fought over at some point of almost everyday on the three servers I play on. The problem is that we do not have continent locks yet, and we are fighting on INDAR ALL THE DAMN TIME!!!!!!!

[psijaka]

OK noew on to part3a of your opus.

AMS NO DEPLOY ZONES AS WELL AS CLOAKING FIELDS - THEY'RE ESSENTIAL

Recently, the road map had a suggestion about no-deploy zones; it was down-voted on the part of poor presentation of whoever posted it, but no-deploy zones are vitally important to the flow of battle I was talking about earlier.

Planetside 1 didn’t need no-deploy zones because, even though you could deploy an AMS directly in the courtyard, you still had to get out and go inside the actual base to get to the objective. In Planetside 2, you can park an AMS directly on top of an objective; this gives the attackers too much of an easy numerical advantage by virtue of simple logistics; it takes the defender longer to get to the defensive position than the attacker when instead the reverse should be true.

A lot of what people complain about is that there are too many attackers and numbers count for too much for the defenders to make a real difference, but the real culprit here is the fact that an attacking force can vomit attackers directly onto an objective. This grossly amplifies the advantage they have in numbers. Instead of deploying 100 meters out and running those 100 meters to the objective, the attackers only need 0 meters.
Basically, distance acts as a natural filter to zerging. A platoon running across a field is easier to defend against than a platoon spawning directly on top of an objective like a shield generator. In fact, it’s more entertaining for both the attackers and defenders if there has to be a grand charge towards an objective. People lust for those infantry pushes they see on TV to be replicated in game; they’re fun. Because of this and because of how they add depth and extend otherwise short battles, no-deploy zones are absolutely essential to the game and should be added to every base.

Let me give an example of how things work now and how they would work with a no-deploy zone. As it stands in the game now, we get a Sunderer, load it up, drive it out to the objective, and deploy it right on top of the shield generator. Now, I have my guys spawning right where the fighting is at; literally on top of the critical point. In order to stop our attack, the defenders have to travel more territory than we, the attackers, do every time they respawn.

Instead, a no-deploy zone would mean that I would not be able to deploy 50 meters, at a minimum, next to an objective (shield generator, SCU, .etc). There has to be a front line both in terms of the overall continent and the facilities themselves. We have to be able to know the general direction of where our opponents are coming from. Right now, numbers provide too much of an advantage; far more than they should. No-deploy zones would go a long way towards thinning out the effect of numbers on a battle.

If such a mechanic is implemented, the basic no-deploy zone around a deployed AMS should be shortened from a 175 to a 125 meter radius. Defensive AMS’s would not be affected by no-deploy zones. A defensive AMS is something a defender sets up in case an SCU goes down or to quickly reinforce a lagging area critical to the facility’s defense.

The idea behind defensive AMS’s being immune to the no-deploy zone is that they provide an additional layer of fun and strategy to the game; it’s another objective for the attacker to take out. In the current game when you attack a Tech Plant, you attack the shield for the garage; 99% of the time, there is a defensive AMS parked inside. It’s good for the game because the players themselves set them up and dictate the strategy all through their placement. Player agency is important.

Again, as an attacker, my primary goal after those shields go down is to remove that defensive AMS, and that’s fun. As a defender, my goal is to remove the attacker’s AMS units, but unfortunately, that’s too easy right now. They die quickly, which is fine, but they need to have cloaking bubbles to make up for it.

That’s right, an AMS should have a cloaking bubble equipped as standard in order to make the “AMS hunt” more engaging..

So you say we should have no deploy zones for attacking AMSs and then you go on to say that attacking AMSs die too quickly and need cloaking?

Introducing arbitrary no deploy zones is an unnecessary complication, and achieves nothing that couldn't be achieved by intelligent base design. Again, take the example of TI Alloys - good base design and the threat of LA + C4 prevents the deployment of an attacking AMS too close to "A".

Had a great battle there earlier this evening; the attacking AMSs had to park up in the ravine or behind the rocks to the north and the attackers had to fight their way towards A. Epic action, largely due to good base design.

[camycamera]

tl;dr but i liked the first part, i guess. and kudos for taking time for making this, i might read it one day and hopefully it is somewhat tested :D

[CrankyTRex]

Lot of stuff potentially to talk about there, but the thing I liked the most out of that was the idea that every base needs to have an SCU and once it goes down, there's no more of this crap with people behind shields standing there waiting to lose.

It probably should not be a single SCU though. Depending on the size of the base, there should be multiple spawn locations and multiple SCUs to take out, to make sure somebody doesn't just blitz the one and end the fight before it begins. Either that or the SCU has to be heavily shielded and you need tertiary objectives to be blown before you get to it.

The second thing I'd like to see is a much faster win condition when it's clear the attacking force has conquered the defenders. Part of that involves the shield camping nonsense going away, but really if you have all the control points and blew the SCU and the defenders are all dead, that facility is already yours, so why do we have to stand around waiting for it to flip so we can get the XP?

I've always wondered if there isn't a way to make the territory control more to do with the population in the hexes, because that really denotes who is in control of any area.

The lack of a "win" condition is the biggest complaint I've heard from people I've tried to get in the game. They say "what's the point?" and it's very difficult to point to some moment where you can say "ok, I have accomplished something and am ready to log off now." I personally think all that waiting around and stalemating that happens creates a pace of the game that never gives people that victorious feeling (in addition to it not really mattering who controls what when.)

[Hawgg]

Not really @OP, but in general, why do people think continent locking will somehow stop Indarside?

Locking Esamir and Amerish happens all the time, granted. But that will just force everyone to play on Indar. Indar barely ever gets locked (I've seen in once or twice). So...huh? We will never be locked out of Indar and forced to play on other continents (although I do want that to happen).

What am I missing here?

[Sifer2]

Again, I couldn't disagree more. Indar is the most popular continent, and this is because Indar is the best continent.

It makes NO SENSE whatsoever to change popular Indar so that it resembles the unpopular Amerish or Esamir. Why on earth would SoE do this?

They should, and hopefully do, recognise that Indar, with it's variations in terrain and outposts, and it's more complex Hex system, is a success.

Furthermore, they should recognise that the other continents, even beautiful Amerish, are failing in their current form, and they should be looking to implement a more complex hex system with more minor outposts to see if they can increase the popularity to Indar like levels (in conjunction with some server mergers - but that is another issue). At least, try this on Amerish.


Not to say your wrong about Indar being the best. Everyone has their opinion. But the real reason people fight on Indar is only because it has the highest population in a game that is currently struggling with low pops. If Amerish was the default continent that everyone new to the game spawned on I wonder if it would not be a completely different story. In Beta when Amerish was introduced an we had the population to fill it up almost everyone agreed it was better than Indar. The bases are far more defensible as enemy movement is more restricted by all the hills.

In almost every game there is always that tired ass map that gets overplayed. Usually cause it was first. Like the first map in Left 4 Dead 2. In PS2 that would be Indar. That said the SW corner of Indar is actually very well designed. The SE, and North are terrible. But a whole continent of SW Indar would actually be a great place to play. We could call it Cyssor :D

[psijaka]

Not to say your wrong about Indar being the best. Everyone has their opinion. But the real reason people fight on Indar is only because it has the highest population in a game that is currently struggling with low pops. If Amerish was the default continent that everyone new to the game spawned on I wonder if it would not be a completely different story. In Beta when Amerish was introduced an we had the population to fill it up almost everyone agreed it was better than Indar. The bases are far more defensible as enemy movement is more restricted by all the hills.

In almost every game there is always that tired ass map that gets overplayed. Usually cause it was first. Like the first map in Left 4 Dead 2. In PS2 that would be Indar. That said the SW corner of Indar is actually very well designed. The SE, and North are terrible. But a whole continent of SW Indar would actually be a great place to play. We could call it Cyssor :D

The real issue here is low population levels, agreed. But I don't see the sense in the OP's suggestion to dumb down or otherwise change Indar to make it less popular; really perverse logic.

And I've created and deleted several new chars just to try things out, and it would appear that the first spawnig is pretty randomly split between the continents.

[Ghost Runner]

You are covering way too much ground at once here, Natir, even your single OP is way too long (I'm not going to bother to read the follow up posts; life is too short. edit - and my lunch break is over).



Your point about camping after the SCU has been taken down is valid, but is a fairly minor issue in the scheme of things. I don't like the suggestion to use pain fields to expell the defenders in this instance; much better to just drop the shields and let the attackers rush the few remaining defenders.



Not a bad idea at all, but surely we get this to a certain extent anyway.



NO NO NO. Difficult enough to defend as it is; having 2 objectives to defend at a minor outpost is just way over the top. The way to minimise spawn camping at these outposts is through good base design. Take TI Alloys as an example; good spawn room design, tanks can't get near the spawn, "A" is indoors so free from tank/air spam, "A" is close to the spawn and the route is tank free. I've been involved in some excellent defences here, because SoE have got the design right. This is the way forward.



I couldn't disagree more. The influence system is excellent, and introduces an extra level of strategy to the game. I don't want a game to be dumbed down to a level where I'm fighting a series of isolated battles (I could play domination mode in COD if I wanted that).

I -do- want a game where you have to take account of the bigger picture; and someone influencing a major battle by taking over an adjacent minor base is just the sort of thing that advances the game to a level beyoud COD/BF. Pity that more people can't grasp this.



Why are some people so afraid of the concept of uncertainty. This is full scale war, and it is entirely correct that things happening elsewhere in the war zone will have an impact upon the outcome of the battle that they are involved in. This is one of the things that makes PS2 stand out from the crowd (and there are a lot of shooters out there).


Standardisation is bad and leads to boredom; I want the battle to be different every time. Different levels of influence create interesting possiblities - posisble to capture or defend a base by only holding one of the three control points, for instance. A good commander will take accout of this.



Agree with this; the instant action mechanics need to be improved, and place players where they will make a difference. Not sure about removing the cooldown though; could be abused by people repeatedly flitting around to where a base is about to be captured, to bag the easy XP.



Again, I couldn't disagree more. Indar is the most popular continent, and this is because Indar is the best continent.

It makes NO SENSE whatsoever to change popular Indar so that it resembles the unpopular Amerish or Esamir. Why on earth would SoE do this?

They should, and hopefully do, recognise that Indar, with it's variations in terrain and outposts, and it's more complex Hex system, is a success.

Furthermore, they should recognise that the other continents, even beautiful Amerish, are failing in their current form, and they should be looking to implement a more complex hex system with more minor outposts to see if they can increase the popularity to Indar like levels (in conjunction with some server mergers - but that is another issue). At least, try this on Amerish.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the ops post as well .

[Babyfark McGeez]

One thing is pretty clear to me now after i played a tad more the last days:

This game currently does not work. It needs some FUNDAMENTAL changes if it is supposed to be more than a giant team deathmatch with vehicles and aircrafts.

And if it really is supposed to be just that, then why bother slapping "planetside" on it? It has the wrongful implication that there is more to it than Team Deathmatch.

What i observed:
People don't care for territory, and what's even worse, they don't care about base benefits. AT ALL. On indar atleast all they're ever doing is taking territory that leads to the crown, and then going there to "farm" certs.
And if even the ability to pull MBTs (i won't argue with the other benefits, because they suck - turret heat reduction? yeah right...) does not make the players defend or take back a tech plant, WHAT'S THE POINT?

I HIGHLY doubt cont locking is going to change that, if they don't change something fundamental i don't see this game going anywhere.

[psijaka]

One thing is pretty clear to me now after i played a tad more the last days:

This game currently does not work. It needs some FUNDAMENTAL changes if it is supposed to be more than a giant team deathmatch with vehicles and aircrafts.

And if it really is supposed to be just that, then why bother slapping "planetside" on it? It has the wrongful implication that there is more to it than Team Deathmatch.

What i observed:
People don't care for territory, and what's even worse, they don't care about base benefits. AT ALL. On indar atleast all they're ever doing is taking territory that leads to the crown, and then going there to "farm" certs.
And if even the ability to pull MBTs (i won't argue with the other benefits, because they suck - turret heat reduction? yeah right...) does not make the players defend or take back a tech plant, WHAT'S THE POINT?

I HIGHLY doubt cont locking is going to change that, if they don't change something fundamental i don't see this game going anywhere.

I care about territory; I get a lot of satisfaction from looking at the map and seeing vital parts of it turn my empire's colour. I'm sure that a lot of other players do as well, although I'm equally sure that many don't, and do treat the game as a giant TDM.

I totally agree with you on the resources or base benefits; who cares? I certainly don't, as I mostly play infantry. As long as I've got enough resources to pull a MAX or plant some mines/C4 then I'm happy. The resource system is something that needs to change radically, as it is as broken as can be right now; utterly meaningless to the majority of people.

The only benefit that most people care about is certs. Perhaps a passive cert gain should be introduced, linked to the amount of territories controlled by the player's empire? (did they not try this in beta? - I can't remember; seems so long ago)

[Babyfark McGeez]

Yeah i hazily recall something like that too. Wasn't it the thing with "Auraxium"?

Also part of me just needed to rage a bit about how crappy the whole non-shooter part is. :p

Base benefits and resources definetely need a complete overhaul though.
And linking passive cert gain (which should be also increased then to put more emphasis on that part) to territory control sounds like a very good solution considering CERTS is all this game is about.

[Mox]

It is really simple to solve almost all problems regarding the flow of battle:
We need a lattice to bring the factions together on the maps
We need spawns in the inner core of every base (no outside building, no shields when scu is down)
We need dedicated drivers/gunners for mbts to reduce the spamm.

Just these three changes would make ps2 the absolute UBER game.
If SOE get these three things done i will never complain again. (just kidding i will still find something to rage.....)

[psijaka]

It is really simple to solve almost all problems regarding the flow of battle:
We need a lattice to bring the factions together on the maps
We need spawns in the inner core of every base (no outside building, no shields when scu is down)
We need dedicated drivers/gunners for mbts to reduce the spamm.

Just these three changes would make ps2 the absolute UBER game.
If SOE get these three things done i will never complain again. (just kidding i will still find something to rage.....)

Agree with you on 2 (absolutely) and in principle on 3 (but how would this be implemented on Magriders?).

But I'm a fan of the hex influence system; has huge potential which I think we will see when population levels rise server (mergers please SoE).

When I look at the map of Indar, I can't help thinking of "go".


http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee391/psijaka/GameComparison.png

[Mox]

(but how would this be implemented on Magriders?).
See ps1: the driver may still handle weak front gun but the main BFG must be under control of a dedicated gunner.

But I'm a fan of the hex influence system; has huge potential which I think we will see when population levels rise server (mergers please SoE).
The hex system simply offers too many capture possibilities at the same time. And it not a question of the population (i play on miller and occasionally we still have some cont locks).
The problem isn't that the hex system never offers some intense fights but it need too often a lot of time to meet enemy forces. Often a big force have too captur 5-10 hexes before meeting any enemies. After that the battle may start but in the same time the hex system fail again because it offers small enemy forces the possibilities to capture several hexes around the main fight. If you want to prevent losing this territory you have to abandon a good fight. To make a long story short, the hex system fosters a flow of battle that is similar to the flow of water around some stones. But i want a battleflow that can be called THE CLASH OF THE TITANS :mad:. As far as i know only the lattice system can offer such experiences on regular basis.

[psijaka]

But I like the complexity and endless possibilities that the Hex system offers. Especially on Indar; not so sure about the dumbed down version on Amerish and Esamir; a lot of wasted map space and opportunity there. And I think that it is a good thing that zergs can be outflanked and cut off if they push on too enthusiastically into enemy territory.

Edit - Anyway, talk of the lattice system is all very well, but I suspect that it is extremely unlikely that SoE will ditch the Hex system at this stage in the game's development.

Edit 2 - but a simple intercontinental lattice would work; could be made to work in a crude way with only 3 continents, and expanded later.