New Battle Flow initial impressions

[Roy Awesome]

Planetside 2 Rush Lanes initial feedback - YouTube

It's my first planetside 2 video like this, so feedback is much appreciated

[Saintlycow]

Nice work Roy

I really agree with your point that the smaller bases won't be able to "give decent fights" with such large numbers of players.

I really agree with the statement that defensible bases are good for the lattice system

[Snydenthur]

It looks like that saurva south fortress isn't build for the big battles either. Can you imagine whan an awful cluster it is, if it goes 100vs100 inside that small base?

Those big battles are what I fear is the good thing and a big downside of this lattice system. First you have your 100 people zerg and you go forward towards a base. You fight (or not) against the enemy zerg to get closer. Base has scu. You'll eventually get to the base and destroy scu. Then you have that 100 player zerg wait for the 15 minutes there doing nothing. So you'll have a great fight and then 15 minutes of total boredom. Every time you attack and win.

How would you really prevent this? You can't go forward since you have to cap the base to do that. And a lot of players care too much for the xp anyway, so why should they leave even if it was possible. I guess one way would be to remove the scu, but that is a risky way, since it might give the defenders too much advantage. Maybe add scu to every base and capping would go a lot faster when it's destroyed?

[Silent Thunder]

Well this was in the notes for today's PTS update.

Removed capture bonus time for standing at the cap point. Standardized uncontested capture times are:
Small Outpost = 4 minutes
Large Outpost = 7 minutes
Facilities = 10 minutes

[Roy Awesome]

It looks like that saurva south fortress isn't build for the big battles either. Can you imagine whan an awful cluster it is, if it goes 100vs100 inside that small base?

I completely disagree based on the fact that you are assuming the fight will take place entirely inside that base. I think you will find a majority of people will be outside trying to push in.

[Snydenthur]

I completely disagree based on the fact that you are assuming the fight will take place entirely inside that base. I think you will find a majority of people will be outside trying to push in.

Well, that is true. But at some point they have to come in if they plan to really take it. If I was there defending, that would be the time to let them take the base. So I agree, that base can be great for the initial battle, but not so much when the enemy actually starts to cap it.

[Roy Awesome]

Well, that is true. But at some point they have to come in if they plan to really take it. If I was there defending, that would be the time to let them take the base. So I agree, that base can be great for the initial battle, but not so much when the enemy actually starts to cap it.

I kind of touch on that, but at that point the battle is already lost and over. There is no good way to determine when a fight is 'over', but if you are so pushed in you can't get out of your spawn room...it's pretty over

[Obstruction]

maybe there should be an scu at every base, and award the win to a somewhat extended area when that goes down.

then award bonus defender xp +50% for people who mop up or fight incoming units.

the obvious two problems in the current model are

1. people sit around for the points, cramming ESF and everything else into a tiny area.

2. nobody cares to hang around and defend a place since the incentive is so small that the minor action they get tends to be less than moving on with the group to the next fight/capture.

if you remove the status bar that shows when the points happen, you won't get the mob moving there to get the points. people will pick their fight and fight at it until the enemy spawn goes down. then maybe get a mop up kill, do some reps, lay some mines, move forward or man some guns or whatever.

[Roy Awesome]

maybe there should be an scu at every base, and award the win to a somewhat extended area when that goes down.

I'm not sure about that one. It fits well in the idea of concurrent objectives but the SCU just really ends a fight. There isnt anything wrong with ending a fight in general, it just sucks if it's too quick.

I dunno. I'd like to see what SOE does.

[Chewy]

I'm not sure about that one. It fits well in the idea of concurrent objectives but the SCU just really ends a fight. There isnt anything wrong with ending a fight in general, it just sucks if it's too quick.

I dunno. I'd like to see what SOE does.

Before I got in Beta there was a SCU at all bases and outposts. It didn't work as you can see from us not having them anymore in outposts.

I for one LOVE to defend a place. There is nothing in the game that can top digging in and taking the brute force of an attacking army only to have them give up within a shot time. And no I am not talking about bio-labs. I find bio-lab fights to be over to fast by a bum rush or a long grind for nothing.

Im talking about making an AMP station the boulder in a river that takes the waters full force but never moves or wares down. Or defending what should have been an easy to cap outpost for so long that attackers just admit defeat and move on. Those are the moments I play for and can't wait to do them again.

Defending may seem to be over once attackers get inside and start to spawn camp, but a fight is NEVER over until you let it be. Coming back from a hard hitting isn't something that happens often, but when it does that is what defines a game.

The only way to "end" a fight is to have cap locks once a base flips. Doesn't need to be long, just 10 minutes. Enough time to hunt for sneaky pests or to push the front lines past that base.

[Sonny]

Nice video Roy,
I'm really looking forward to how these super-defensible bases will change battle flow. Could be a game changer.

By the way, you made a lot of good points in the video, maybe next time you could have a short summary of them near the end?

Sonny

[Falcon_br]

For what I am seeing I think the game will be like:
Join the attacking Zerg or the defending Zerg!
I don't like ghost cap, but my squad is normally delaying the enemy advanced with ambushes and killing enemy ghost cap squads.
With the new lattice system, there will be only platoons wars! You can't flank, you can't ghost cap, you must Zerg to take the next point! It will also be impossible to distract and split the enemy advance, because there will be only just one place to go!
It is the end of small squads and lone wolves.

[Elgareth]

For what I am seeing I think the game will be like:
Join the attacking Zerg or the defending Zerg!
I don't like ghost cap, but my squad is normally delaying the enemy advanced with ambushes and killing enemy ghost cap squads.
With the new lattice system, there will be only platoons wars! You can't flank, you can't ghost cap, you must Zerg to take the next point! It will also be impossible to distract and split the enemy advance, because there will be only just one place to go!
It is the end of small squads and lone wolves.

That's a very pessimistic view IMHO. You'll still have multiple options on what to cap, it's just that each "capping route" is now seperated. But if the Zerg is going the middle route, you could still go the northern or southern one, you can still split your squad up and try to take two facilities at once (apart from the zerg trying to take a third one), to force the defending zerg to split up or lose more areas than they can retake...
My hope is that through these capping routes it is finally feasible to wait one base down the attacking zerg-line and defend/counter-attack from there, since the zerg will most likely be streamlined towards the next target on that route, hopefully resulting in more bases with defenders in them, and less ghost-capping, but more fights from small to large scale overall.

[Roy Awesome]

For what I am seeing I think the game will be like:
Join the attacking Zerg or the defending Zerg!
I don't like ghost cap, but my squad is normally delaying the enemy advanced with ambushes and killing enemy ghost cap squads.
With the new lattice system, there will be only platoons wars! You can't flank, you can't ghost cap, you must Zerg to take the next point! It will also be impossible to distract and split the enemy advance, because there will be only just one place to go!
It is the end of small squads and lone wolves.

This isn't a terrible thing if the level design supports it, which is the point of 90% of the video.

A small force can't do anything in a large fight because there is 2 objectives during a fight: 'Capture the point' and 'Camp the spawn'. I talk quite a bit about 'Concurrent Objectives', which are things that need to be done while the other two objectives are being attacked. Add in enough concurrent objectives and there is plenty of things for small squads and lone wolfs to do in a fight.

Bases currently do not support this at all, and if the battle flow changes were to go live tomorrow, it would be a catastrophic failure because of that.

Large fights aren't fun when everyone piles onto the point or spawn camps. They are fun when you can split the fight up into many small objectives.

I look forward to seeing this in an actual fight. Just watching ghost caps is boring.

[ringring]

Nice video Roy and I agree with pretty much everything.

WRT hack times, I've always thought that they should be long enough so that a resecure team can get organised and move in, and then a fight can ensue. Whatever the time is, that's my benchmark and quick hack times based on no activity seem to run counter to that.

One question that's not often asked is what about resecure times? Presently with the advancing bar the bar retreats on a resecure at the same rate as it advanced for a capture. In old Planetside as you'll recall, a resecure happens instantly, pretty much. This meant that when the resecure team's job was done they could get back to their main fight. I think it may help encourage resecures which will help the overall fight.

(Also a resecure XP 'gift' however small should be there as an incentive).

[Rolfski]

You should post it on reddit ;-)

[Roy Awesome]

You should post it on reddit ;-)

I did. It didn't gain any traction

[NewSith]

I put 7:45 on my ringtone.


Past 17:00 I kind of disagree... I may agree only if the timer works both ways... So if there is a 100vs5 situation, the speed at which the attackers capture the base is equal to the speed the defenders reset it.

Plus you mentioned it to be "streamlined", well, it is not. It is very unintuitive (un-, not counter-) and a new player would wonder for ages why some big base is flipped in under 2 minutes and a small outpost takes around 20 minutes to be captured.

[Stanis]

I dislike 'concurrent objectives'.

I do not see multiple objectives for smaller groups. I see a dozen speed humps that are very advantages to the numerically superior force, for the simple reason they can spare a couple guys to keep going round knocking over or repairing each one systematically.


I prefer concurrent (linear) chains. The objective can be interrupted by stopping the chain at a point .. which resets the chain.
This is something that puts a timer on the end-point, and a series of skirmishes/encounters rather than whack-a-mole.

This mechanic seems to me more in line with the new rush lanes for objectives.

You mentioned teleporters .. if each one can be flipped by adding an unlinked capture point, it added 3 whack-a-mole fights.
Far better to have teleporters under the attackers control.
A control console in the satellite base that that needs to be hacked to access take both control of the teleporter and disable 1/3 the shields at a teleporter generator.
Hacking takes it for you empire : destroying it disables completely.

That's a chain with consequences and options.
You've got depth and choices : hack (use) or destroy (deny).
The generator isn't immediately vulnerable .. and you can either defend the generator if vulnerable .. or recapture a satellite .. or rush to hack an enemy terminal.

[Rivenshield]

I really agree with your point that the smaller bases won't be able to "give decent fights" with such large numbers of players
Pardon me for sounding snarky, but that is absolute baloney. It looks slightly bigger than any PS1 base, and we had some kind-hell 133x133 set-tos in those... and I don't recall it being crowded until we got inside in those narrow freaking hallways.

[OctavianAXFive]

A couple of things I thought about while watching your video.

First, I don't know about putting tunnels everywhere. From what I understand they can be quite the burden on performance. Obviously this is something that will get fixed in the long run (how long?) but for now I really want to be careful giving defenders TOO much of an advantage.

Tunnels are a tool to be used sparingly. Performance issues aside, my concern is that tunnels sprouting up everywhere will make it hard on the attacking force to pin the defenders in. If they are two-way tunnels, meaning the attackers can also use them, then you get the opposite problem of giving the defenders too many avenues to worry about. An excellent example of this is the tunnel in the Stronghold on the live servers. (I don't know if it's any different on PTS) The Stronghold tunnel ends up being more of a burden on the defenders than a blessing.

Tunnels could also create a turtling problem if they are two way. I'm going to use the BF3 map Seine Crossing as an example. I'll try to put this in a way people who haven't played can understand.

There is an objective that basically behaves like an SCU called an MCOM. There is an MCOM on Seine Crossing, the very first "B" MCOM for those who know, that is EXTREMELY difficult to assail once the defenders are well entrenched.

The reason it's so hard is because there are only three ways into that MCOM, all tunnels. Thankfully the tunnels lead into a courtyard where the actual MCOM is. The only way to pull a decent team off of it so you can destroy it is by mortaring the position. No conventional attack ever really works unless there is a severe skill/numbers difference between the two teams.

I believe I've seen some horror stories about narrow corridors in PS1 so I'm just going to wrap this up by saying that tunnels are a tricky design challenge.

Second, I got a mad good idea from your enthusiasm about the AA turret on the roof.

I think last night on Mattherson we saw just how ridiculous a shite ton of Burster Maxes can be. The reason we need them to be so good is because right now a lot of fighting takes place at the small bases that don't have static air defenses and often don't have enough room to park sky guards.

I think there is an opportunity to make pilots and ground pounders happy. Consistent AA turrets at all of the outposts can reduce the need for powerful burster maxes. If they play their cards right, they can safely nerf burster maxes while maintaining good flak cover for infantry at smaller outposts. It will fix the targets so pilots will pretty much always know where they are, it will limit the volume of really good AA fire to just those turrets, and it will make them valuable points of defense (concurrent objectives!).

Third, I think we should wait and see on the ghost capping thing. Will it even be as much of a problem in this system? It's hard to tell right now on the PTS because there are so few people.

Fourth, I've talked at length about base defense and if you haven't read it, I have long discussions in the FNO 26 thread and in my own thread.

But a highlight is the capture system that I think Whiteagle and I kind of hammered out together.

We basically throw out control points in favor of multiple generators and an SCU for each base.

Instead of explaining the whole thing for each different type of base I'll just give an example using the Saurva South Fortress.

That generator for the outer wall shield doubles as an SCU shield. The SCU itself is located even closer to the spawn room in the interior of the base.

Once the outer generator goes down, the SCU shields go down and a timer starts. That timer denotes when the SCU will lose power and stop defender spawning. The attackers can still manually overload the SCU, causing that timer to countdown even faster.

Once the SCU dies, the spawn room shields go down and the attackers have to breach the spawn room itself to flip a switch, starting a base capture countdown timer.

If the defenders can repair the outer generator, then the shields pop back online and the timer starts counting up to its time limit, but it does not reset instantly.

Obviously at this point the defenders can no longer spawn at the base and will have to resecure from the outside in.

I think this plays right into having concurrent objectives and creates a better dynamic then "sit on the capture point."

Obviously the generator would be invulnerable until adjacency is established with the territory.

So yea, that's my feedback. I'm a big proponent of the base defensibility thing.

[ringring]

I believe I've seen some horror stories about narrow corridors in PS1 so I'm just going to wrap this up by saying that tunnels are a tricky design challenge.
.
Corridors in ps1 weren't a particular horror story, that would be over-egging it. However PS1 experience may not well apply because ttk is so much shorter in PS2.

[Roy Awesome]

I dislike 'concurrent objectives'.

I do not see multiple objectives for smaller groups. I see a dozen speed humps that are very advantages to the numerically superior force, for the simple reason they can spare a couple guys to keep going round knocking over or repairing each one systematically.


I prefer concurrent (linear) chains. The objective can be interrupted by stopping the chain at a point .. which resets the chain.
This is something that puts a timer on the end-point, and a series of skirmishes/encounters rather than whack-a-mole.

This mechanic seems to me more in line with the new rush lanes for objectives.

You mentioned teleporters .. if each one can be flipped by adding an unlinked capture point, it added 3 whack-a-mole fights.
Far better to have teleporters under the attackers control.
A control console in the satellite base that that needs to be hacked to access take both control of the teleporter and disable 1/3 the shields at a teleporter generator.
Hacking takes it for you empire : destroying it disables completely.

That's a chain with consequences and options.
You've got depth and choices : hack (use) or destroy (deny).
The generator isn't immediately vulnerable .. and you can either defend the generator if vulnerable .. or recapture a satellite .. or rush to hack an enemy terminal.

Uhm, I think you completely missed my point.

Linear objectives treat an entire attack as a singular step-by-step process of turning that base into yours. When an objective is taken, the entire fight proceeds onto the second objective. Consider Saurva Bio-lab. The entire fight (when there is one there) focuses around the northern forward spawn. As soon as the attackers secure that, they push in through the jump-pads and teleporters then try to take the SCU Generator. Once the SCU Generator is destroyed, the fight then moves to the SCU. Then the fight is over.

If you have an overwhelming majority in the attackers, these objectives can be skipped and done in any order. If you have an overwhelming majority in the defenders, the attack goes nowhere.

A small group simply cannot make a difference in any situation, unless your small group is just zergging to the objective. Why? Because every objective you take ultimately contributes the the capture of the base.

The level design of the Bio-lab also doesn't contribute to the situation because there is a linear flow from a teleporter to an objective. If you were to draw a line from a teleporter to the furthest objective from that objective in the inside of the base, the line would probably cross or get very close to every objective in the biolab. This means that you simply need to push down the line in order to capture every objective and win the base.

For Saurva Bio-lab, there is really only one concurrent objective, and that is holding the bottom of the bio-lab. Not locking down the courtyard wont kill your attack, but it makes it harder. It doesn't directly contribute to taking the base (in a way, point D is down there but that is unique) but it sure helps. It does, however, give small groups something to do. Small group of defenders can try to hold the CY. Small group of attackers can try to stop them and lock it down. You may not be contributing to the game's idea of winning the base, but you are directly helping your team.



Now, lets consider a 'Good' base that regularly has great fights, Split Peak Pass.

Again, Draw a line from the entrance of the base to the furthest objective from that entrance. You will notice some important bits that differentiate Split Peak from Saurva: For starters, the Spawn Room is not along that line. Second, only one or two objectives are in the path of that line, and Third, there is intricate detail and clear lines of progression from the entrance to the objective.

I would say that Split Peak has 4 concurrent objectives (in addition to holding all the points) when attacking that base. First: kill the vehicle shield. This lets you roll tanks into the base which is helpful but isn't outright needed like the SCU shield in Saurva. Second: Camp the spawn room. Unlike Saurva, the spawn room is nowhere near the objective. This makes it a concurrent objective. Third: Control the spawn-room bridge choke point. This is complimentary to camping the spawn room, but if you can't get close to it, this is another good objective for you to hold. Fourth: Hold the walls. If the defenders get back onto the walls of the facility, your tanks are going to have a tough time entering the base.

Notice how each of these objectives aren't in the direct path of taking the points? It gives you more to do instead of just joining the zerg rush to the area of the map that will give you the win.

Also, some of you are thinking 'Why not call these secondary objectives?'...I consider secondary objectives 'do and done' kind of deals and don't necessarily contribute to winning the Primary Objective. The Primary Objective is controlling the base, so these objectives run concurrently with that objective. You don't ignore the Primary Objective when doing these, you are helping but the game just doesn't necessarily recognize you for doing it.

Add more of these things to do, and you actually give smaller groups something to do instead of just zerging to the objective. Can it be Whack-A-Mole? Only if there isn't enough people for what the base is designed for. The thing about Rush Lanes is that you will almost universally have more people at each fight. A level designer really needs some data here to determine what numbers a base will usually see.

[Sifer2]

For what I am seeing I think the game will be like:
Join the attacking Zerg or the defending Zerg!
I don't like ghost cap, but my squad is normally delaying the enemy advanced with ambushes and killing enemy ghost cap squads.
With the new lattice system, there will be only platoons wars! You can't flank, you can't ghost cap, you must Zerg to take the next point! It will also be impossible to distract and split the enemy advance, because there will be only just one place to go!
It is the end of small squads and lone wolves.



That's true to an extent. Though it's definitely not the end of small squads, and lone wolves it's just the activities of those two will change from annoying ghost capping to other things.

The new system helps promotes the big epic battles that make the game actually fun to play. It also might actually make defending a worthwhile activity. Since if the enemy can't just go around you in one of 10 different ways then suddenly being a defender isn't so boring. And that is really where the points brought up in the video come into play. Since as we all know most bases in PS2 don't feel defensible.