Discussion: What do smaller squads want in order to have more fun AND make an impact?

[ItZMuRdA]

Hi guys,

Was having a discussion of my own earlier today and got thinking about what ideas we could brainstorm and come up with regarding the topic of small squad/outfit play and what could be done to both improve enjoyment for those of us who choose to play in smaller groups, while also allowing smaller ops to feel like they can make a meaningful impact in the game. Some of the greatest times I've had in PS2 thus far is spawning into an "Enemy Platoon" outpost with my squad of 6 guys and being able to successfully take it back nearly entirely by ourselves. We saw a lot of that from small "elite" outfits in PS1, so if that's still your style of play in PS2, what would you like to see added in the future to better support that?

I'd like to structure this as an open-ended discussion and hopefully get a lot of good feedback and suggestions. I know larger outfits running massive operations gets a lot of attention in PS2, but there are a lot of us, especially PS1 vets, that still prefer to run around in smaller squads, even two squads at times, and when we're actually able to make a significant impact it really feels great. I think keeping the game fun, compelling, and meaningful for players who choose to play in groups of all sizes will really do us all a great favor in keeping PlanetSide 2 thriving for many years to come.

That being said, what ideas do you have for improving the enjoyment and meaningful impact of you and your squadmates' actions ingame? New objectives? More compelling resource gameplay? Other features? What do you want to see in PlanetSide 2 that would benefit your small squad?

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and double thanks in advance for your contributions to the thread!

[NewSith]

Sorry for saying it in such way, but I want zerg to stop being given opportunities to do everything. In other words to make squad (or small team, that's more precise) play interesting, the zerg should not be allowed to play the game properly.

I can expand on that if you want.

[ringring]

In terms of resecures the issues are:
a) where are the enemy,
b) how long is there remaining on the hack,
c) how long will it take to get there and attempt a resecure.

I think a) and b) are mostly taken care of. We have information from the map and we have tools such as radar on scout vehicles (mossie and flash).

In PS1 terms we also had the comms channel that is cr5 chat and /sitrep. I presume something on improving comms is already under discussion at SOE.

One thing that gets me though is the spawning mechanism. By this I mean often we decide to go for resecures by spawning in to the outpost in question (time is often critical) and where you can spawn from/to seems inconsistent.

My wish would be either that the spawning is consistent or (perhaps it already is) that whatever the spawning rules are they are understood. (PS1 rules were dead easy).

[Stardouser]

There are not nearly enough destructible/repairable meaningful assets in the game...whether that's turrets, generators, scus, we need more of each of those, and more new ones. This kind of thing is something a single squad can focus on - taking them out/repairing/etc.

Especially turrets, and honestly at major bases we need AV turrets with 360 degree spin capability. With instant action and other forms of drop podding, and other ways of entering bases that do not constitute a traditional assault from the outside to inside, having turrets point outward only means they aren't useful 80% of the fight. The fact that I see so many turrets at large base fights sitting both unused and undestroyed is proof of that.

[AThreatToYou]

The biggest issue I can see is that there is no more hot-dropping unless you are LA, which essentially means there is no more at least partially stealthy way to enter a base. I've heard about this thing called "ejection seat"...
There is a serious issue in PS2 and that's not every HA grunt can pack medkit and repair tool. Now, it would be feasible for everyone to head in as medics, but where's the ammo? In PS1, you could loot weapons and ammunition from dead enemies. In PS2, there is no such thing. This severely weakens the effectiveness of a small-scale attack because, eventually, the attackers will run out of ammo regardless of how many ammo-filled dead bodies you throw at them.

It's also an issue for doing MAX attacks because they removed the MAX Crash. In short I think we need the MAX Crash back.... that'll give something small outfits to do for sure.
NC MAX shield + run mode might allow it. If you add inventory looting, MAX units should have a way to scavenge some sort of weapon. I mean, they have hands, why can't they use a pistol? :D

MAX is an aux. problem. We should be able to loot ammo.

Another issue (that PS1 had for ages) is the lack of an unarmed stealth aircraft. In the later years of PS1, we were introduced to this thing called the Phantasm. Bring the Phantasm back! Small outfits would love it. If not that, allow us to certify into a way to disarm our ESF in exchange for being able to cloak them for 5+ minutes if not permanently.

[Rumblepit]

lattice will do.

it will create alot of options for smaller squads and outfits.when the big fights start on Wednesday your gonna see small squads and outfits find their place. bigger and longer fights will promote spec ops, taking out AA, dropping gens,going for sundys,dropping on satellite bases,fast response , i could go on and on. this will open many doors...
i know someone will say you can do all this stuff now, this is true, but people dont really defend bases. with the lattice, they wont have a choice.

[waldizzo]

Give all bases a meaningful benefit that hurts to lose. Put a couple of generators in defensible locations at the bases. If the gens are blown, the base benefit is gone.

Smaller groups will target these for destruction. In turn, smaller groups will respond.

The base benefits need to be reviewed for this to work though. As they are now, no one will care if they lose a bioloab or amp station benefit.

[VengeanceD]

"Quality is Quantity"

[ItZMuRdA]

One thing that gets me though is the spawning mechanism. By this I mean often we decide to go for resecures by spawning in to the outpost in question (time is often critical) and where you can spawn from/to seems inconsistent.

My wish would be either that the spawning is consistent or (perhaps it already is) that whatever the spawning rules are they are understood. (PS1 rules were dead easy).

That's definitely a good point and something we've noticed a lot. So often do I find myself wishing I could spawn at what is a perfectly viable base to defend, but unable to do so. And with cap timers getting even shorter the ability to spawn near and move there with vehicles is usually not an option.

I would like to see improved spawn AI or at least the ability to spawn more places that really need reinforcements. I realize its a delicate balance not allowing people to just zip around a map entirely via deployment, but something certainly worth looking at.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Soothsayer]

It would be nice to see secondary objectives that influence the capture of facilities that are a little ways out from the primary objective that a small team could either be tasked with attacking or defending. This could be a small bunker that has controls over an effect at the base. Something like flooding an area with plasma, granting the defenders a 30 second window to spawn while an SCU is down, or an AoE pulse that affects important attacker conditions (like causing Sunderer's spawn rate to slow down).

The game Section 8 had anti-drop pod fortifications that would damage or kill drop pods if they deployed too close to them. Drop pods are pretty prevalent now, I don't think they're OP or anything, but squad deploys have no real counter.

[p0intman]

-Easily defendable facilities.
-Squad transports that aren't giant HERE I AM, SHOOT ME NOW objects like galaxies. I want my phantasm back.
-Base designs akin to those like in PS1 where a decent squad or two could reliably defend them if we knew wtf they were doing
-Less emphasis on goddamned zergfits. Fuck zergfits. In the face, with rusty nails.
-Fuck nerfing weapons to drive sales of new weapons being sold
-Fuck the hex system. No turning back.
-Objectives that can be taken and held independently of base capping mechanics.
-Resources and ANTs
-Base drain mechanics
-Generators independent of base capping mechanics
-better defenses around cap points to facilitate holds against superior numbers
-Actual CE. You know, with spitfire turrets, mines, boomers, etc.
-I would like my inventory back, because fuck classes and limitations, it stifles being fucking creative and clever.
-I want my rocket rifle back. I should not have to fucking pay for it, because fuck microtransactions. IN THE FUCKING FACE WITH RUSTY NAILS
-Fuck putting small squad gameplay into esports. IN THE FUCKING FACE WITH RUSTY NAILS!
-- FUCK ESPORTS. FUCK MLG. I WILL NOT HAVE MY FAVORED PLAYSTYLE TURNED INTO A FUCKING SPECTATOR SPORT!

Yes I'm FUCKING PISSED.

Edit: Found this image on the official forums. Fuck Battlefieldside and CODside. Fuck Ghost cappers.
http://www.herpderp.com/Upload/images/1368803005.jpg

[Hmr85]

Lawl Pointman!!! I agree tho. on all of the above points.

[Forsaken One]

We need unique, squad based vehicles that combine into a super vehicle where each member is controlling the part they combined with.

Power Rangers Turbo - Turbo Megazord Transformation - YouTube

talk about teamwork.

1 Gal or Sundy for the body
2 MBTs for the arms and hands
2 lightnings and 2 harassers for the legs and feet
1 flash for the head.

[Maidere]

Give all bases a meaningful benefit that hurts to lose. Put a couple of generators in defensible locations at the bases. If the gens are blown, the base benefit is gone.

Smaller groups will target these for destruction. In turn, smaller groups will respond.

The base benefits need to be reviewed for this to work though. As they are now, no one will care if they lose a bioloab or amp station benefit.
This.

[AThreatToYou]

Galaxy supply drop!

My HONEST idea is that the galaxy supply drop should allow you to change class and change MAX weapons (but not "pull a max")

[Pella]

Good Topic.

While my outfit have loads of fun in PS2, We look at the map and anything under Enemy platoons detected we go and re secure.

On the test server now. They have added enemy and ally numbers which will help.

As if there is 50 People. It will show enemy platoons. But it could also be 100 People which its impossible to tell currently.

This should open up the battle field abit more for us atleast.

Also a cloaked AMS still need to make it into ps2.

[Momember]

@p0intman

Dat-Post! I <3 you so much so much want

[Sunrock]

The outfit I run with usually only have 1 to 2 squads online even though we have enough members online every week to run two platoons... but some how they are never online at the same time. But that's for an other topic on an other forum.

Anyway we are having fun most of the days as it is now. But we are avoiding the big zergs, that is when it say enemy platoons detected and there is only one allied squad or less detected in the base hex.

[Crator]

-Easily defendable facilities.
-Squad transports that aren't giant HERE I AM, SHOOT ME NOW objects like galaxies. I want my phantasm* back.
-Base designs akin to those like in PS1 where a decent squad or two could reliably defend them if we knew wtf they were doing
-Less emphasis on zergfits. Screw zergfits. In the face, with rusty nails.
-Screw nerfing weapons to drive sales of new weapons being sold
-Screw the hex system. No turning back.
-Objectives that can be taken and held independently of base capping mechanics.
-Resources and ANTs
-Base drain mechanics
-Generators independent of base capping mechanics
-better defenses around cap points to facilitate holds against superior numbers
-Actual CE. You know, with spitfire turrets, mines, boomers, etc.
-I would like my inventory back, because screw classes and limitations, it stifles being creative and clever.
-I want my rocket rifle back. I should not have to pay for it, because screw microtransactions. IN THE FACE WITH RUSTY NAILS
-Screw putting small squad gameplay into esports. IN THE FACE WITH RUSTY NAILS!
-- SCREW ESPORTS. SCREW MLG. I WILL NOT HAVE MY FAVORED PLAYSTYLE TURNED INTO A SPECTATOR SPORT!

I've cleaned up the above list of curse words so that those who don't like such things will read it! Every one of the points are important!

All of the above please! I do believe this sums up the majority of what the PS1 vets have said they wanted since before beta... And dat pic was epic!

MOST WANTED: -Actual CE. You know, with spitfire turrets, mines, boomers, etc. / Plus, map elements telling you where your CE is, where friendly CE is, and UI element that displays how much CE you have out and the max you can have.

Missing from the list: -Cloak bubbles: CE flavor (Ageis Shield Generator) as well as AMS cloak capabilities.

*Phantasm (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Phantasm): A multi-passenger flying plane that is capable of cloaking. Super quite engines. No weapons.

[Shamrock]

AMS with cloak bubble = more survivability for a small squad behind enemy lines, currently im forced to sit in a burster MAX and babysit a sunder from a constant stream of:-

(1) Lolpodders,
(2) C4 light assaults,
(3) suicidal tank mine engineers,
(4) Hot-dropping C4 heavy assaults.

With a cloak bubble as long as I was smart enough with my placement, and we made a point of not engaging the enemy when they were close to it to avoid detection we could keep it up and running for a decent period. In PS2 once a sunder in the field is "Q" spotted your basically shafted as you would have to devote a disproportionate amount of your squad to defend it which isn't an option for small squads.

NB: I miss my spitfire turrets (would be great for keeping light assaults at bay) :D

[Sunrock]

Well I don't mind the AMS is as it is. If you make the AMS allot harder to detect and take out it makes it harder for small outfits to defend a base. Because if you don't stop the spawning of enemy players they will eventually take the base. It's just a question of when as they re-enter the battle very quickly after getting killed.

Well.... Maybe after the next patch when the lactis system or how you spell it again get into the game it might be an idea to better hide the AMS... As it will concentrate the player base on the map witch makes it easer to detect the AMS as more eyes cover more ground. But as the game is designed to day... no.

[Hmr85]

Cloaked AMS needs to make a return. I am not worried about if its hard to find. It isn't if a large group of players is pouring out of it. Just follow them back to it. From a spec ops point though we need it to make a return due to all of the following reasons posted above.

[WSNeo]

Give all bases a meaningful benefit that hurts to lose. Put a couple of generators in defensible locations at the bases. If the gens are blown, the base benefit is gone.

Smaller groups will target these for destruction. In turn, smaller groups will respond.

The base benefits need to be reviewed for this to work though. As they are now, no one will care if they lose a bioloab or amp station benefit.

This.

[WSNeo]

Cloaked AMS needs to make a return. I am not worried about if its hard to find. It isn't if a large group of players is pouring out of it. Just follow them back to it. From a spec ops point though we need it to make a return due to all of the following reasons posted above.

Or an ESF could cert into the Scout Radar. It seems like a logical counter.

[KodanBlack]

P0intman's Galaxy poster is awesome. GOOD STUFF!

[ItZMuRdA]

Thanks for all the feedback so far guys, lets keep it going! I know there's plenty more of you.

[Rolfski]

In other words to make squad (or small team, that's more precise) play interesting, the zerg should not be allowed to play the game properly.
The promise of this game is scale, better get used to it. Nerfing this game down to a small tactical shooter only is exactly the opposite what is needed to improve overall game play. If I want to play small tactical only, I play BF3, not this game.

There's nothing wrong with zergs (it's what makes this game epic) but the game needs to provide better game play for small squads as well.

A cloakable squad-only Sundy is a good solution that will help smaller squads in particular imo. I don't see it as overpowered as Sunderers are very vulnerable anyway atm and when used by big outfits it becomes easy to track its location.

Deployable defenses like automatic turrets and the space equivalent of sandbags should also help smaller squads to overcome numerical superiority. These need to be balanced out of course to prevent over-spamming: Maybe some Sunderer-like mechanic that prevent more than 12 of them deployed at the same location and make them auto-deconstruct when you leave the area.

And there are of course secondary objectives that should help small squad play. Not sure in which form but PS1 apparently had a few good examples. My biggest concern with secondary objectives though is that they can potentially make the game overly complex and scare away too many new players so they need to figure out a way to make them easy to understand.

P0intman's Galaxy poster is awesome. GOOD STUFF! Here's the original post, feel free to give it a like: https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/the-thread-that-will-save-the-galaxy.126461/

[NewSith]

The promise of this game is scale, better get used to it. Nerfing this game down to a small tactical shooter only is exactly the opposite what is needed to improve overall game play. If I want to play small tactical only, I play BF3, not this game.

There's nothing wrong with zergs (it's what makes this game epic) but the game needs to provide better game play for small squads as well.

When I say zerg I mean players that play just to play, staying on a Biolab farm, when friendly hexes around the map are dropping like flies.

When I say zerg, I mean outfits, that participate in zerg, having 64+ people online, doing nothing to contribute to actual continent capture, while monopolizing the command chat.

When I say zerg, I mean outfits that come en masse on an unpopulated hex. The funny thing is, in this case it is mostly not their fault.

A cloakable squad-only Sundy is a good solution that will help smaller squads in particular imo. I don't see it as overpowered as Sunderers are very vulnerable anyway atm and when used by big outfits it becomes easy to track its location.

Cloaked fulltime AMS is still balanced, since it cannot use its guns (even if it can, a cloak would obviously work both ways, and the shooter wouldn't see what he's shooting at), nor can it have any extra layer of armor (be it mine guard or blockade armor) on it. I don't see any reason to lock it into squad-only.

Deployable defenses like automatic turrets and the space equivalent of sandbags should also help smaller squads to overcome numerical superiority.

They won't. Don't forget the principle of "if we have it, they have it too".

And there are of course secondary objectives that should help small squad play. Not sure in which form but PS1 apparently had a few good examples.

You'll be surprised but PS1 had LESS small objectives. The secret was in their design and functionality, not in their numbers.


Bottomline is, PlanetSide 2 doesn't make me want to play the game when my outfitmates are offline. This makes me quit the game until outfit mates are on. See the contraditction and what it results with?

[Rolfski]

Cloaked fulltime AMS is still balanced, since it cannot use its guns (even if it can, a cloak would obviously work both ways, and the shooter wouldn't see what he's shooting at), nor can it have any extra layer of armor (be it mine guard or blockade armor) on it. I don't see any reason to lock it into squad-only.
Not sure if it is balanced then but as a squad doing some "secret special ops" you would probably at least have the option to set it to squad-spawn only. A full greenie zerg spawning at your cloaked AMS is pretty much a dead give-away of the location and the end of your "secret ops".


They won't. Don't forget the principle of "if we have it, they have it too".
Deployable defences make less sense if you are the attacker so it should help smaller squads defending against bigger numbers, especially if you add mechanics that prevent others from deploying them in the same area as I suggested.

[camycamera]

wow, p0intman! SPAM THAT PIC EVERYWHERE SO HIGGLES CAN SEE.

kinda related, but i think it would be awesome for platoon leaders/sqaud leaders to be able to place cover/barricades after they capture/an already captured base, and then they can talk to the rest of the squad where to place them. the barricades can be limited to like 10, and they can be destroyed. imagine it: a terminal that spawns a little construction car that the platoon/squad leader can only go in, and it can place a certain amount of barricades around to help make bases more defence-able. also, have it so it can only be put in a certain area, etc.

it would be awesome, and help with defending a little. also, making the turrets automated but you can go into them if you want and pilot manually. oh, and maybe placeable turrets as well!

and XP FOR SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING BASES, WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT IN YET HIGGLES?!

[Snydenthur]

For hex system, small squads have a lot to do. For lattice, I don't know. Maybe wait for a lane to be out of enemies and then ghost cap?

Or just join the main force. This game is supposed to be large battles, what are you doing alone in middle of nowhere. Being with the main force doesn't mean you have to run along with them. Go with them but do your own thing to help the team.

There is nothing soe can do with this situation. Except limit the size of battles and that would kill the game.

[kidriot]

I have to be honest. A lot of what you guys are suggesting are really bad ideas. I expect more coming from, what some people consider, a core group of Planetside 2 fans.

Hostile Takeover usually runs 2 squads. One night we had 30+ on and that was exciting!

We tend to set before us small meaningful goals that give us a sense of accomplishment whenever we succeed. You have to play within your means and my outfit, with its 1.8 kdr avg, routinely takes on a Platoon. Sometimes if there's Enemy Squads we may not bite because the fights end so quickly. Key to small outfits are a few ingredients: communication, response time and mobility. Planetside 2 currently gives us all the tools to communicate, respond and stay mobile. Yes they could be better implemented but as it is we've made it work.

The key is to know what you're getting yourself into. You can have a platoon in a hex but where in the hex are they? 24 focused people > a platoon spread thin.

[Aveox]

I think for a large part the small squad objectives question comes down to the current base design:
- There are no meaningful benefits to owning a base except the tech plant. It is therefore not interesting to attack such targets if they are behind the front line.
- It is not possible to "switch off" base benefits by killing a generator as was possible in PS1.
- Generators and such are located in rooms that have too many doors and windows or are too small to even defend. One of the reasons a small squad could hold their own in PS1 was because all of the important things like capture point and generator were in their own, defensible room with only one door.
- There are too many generators in a base, making it impossible for a small squad to keep them all down.
- There are no "plan B" options like draining a base of NTU to provide an alternate way of capping.


Solutions:
- Biolabs and amp stations should have much more pronounced benefits, like near instant respawn and no turret overheating at all.
- Add a single "facility benefits" generator to main bases that is independant of the rest of the base and can be killed at any time. Put it in a building that is highly defensible and has just one door and no windows
- Likewise, add a "Lattice" generator to major towers like the Crown, Crossroads etc. that allows smaller squads to cut the lattice and deny NTU (see below) and benefits. It should also be put in a smallish room with a single doorway and no windows.
- Add NTU and NTU silo's to the game and allow a base to go neutral when it runs out of NTU
- Allow Galaxies to carry an NTU module and refill NTU silo's by landing on the base or tower air pads and deploying.
- Likewise, allow Galaxies to land on an enemy air pad and extract NTU (but at a much slower rate then filling a friendly base).
- Base turrets and terminals should auto repair, draining NTU. Spawning players and vehicles should drain NTU.
- Allow a friendly warpgate to slowly refill NTU through the lattice to prevent boring ANT runs, but also to create yet another way to sabotage through the lattice network by cutting it at vital points and thus denying the NTU flow.

[Rolfski]

and XP FOR SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING BASES, WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT IN YET HIGGLES?!
It was there in beta but got taken out for various reasons: One of them being that it made the game play more boring, having to wait for the defend timer all the time. The other being that it got exploited.


We tend to set before us small meaningful goals that give us a sense of accomplishment whenever we succeed. You have to play within your means and my outfit, with its 1.8 kdr avg, routinely takes on a Platoon. Sometimes if there's Enemy Squads we may not bite because the fights end so quickly. Key to small outfits are a few ingredients: communication, response time and mobility. Planetside 2 currently gives us all the tools to communicate, respond and stay mobile. Yes they could be better implemented but as it is we've made it work.

Sure, setting yourself challenging goals as a small squad can get you so far in this game but no matter how you look at it, the impact you can make as a small squad is rather limited atm. Besides that, we all want our epic The Alamo's/Thermopylae's at some point and the game atm just doesn't provide enough ingredients for this.

[Scourge]

There are two major reasons I see for the lack of options for small squads.

First off, the objective system. In the original Planetside, you could drop on top of a tower with three people. If you were a very coordinated team, you could defeat ten or more enemies within the tower, and begin hacking the tower. The respawn timer for a tower was 20 seconds, and it took a Advanced Hacker 22 seconds to complete a hack. This meant that you could clear the control console, get the hack off, and then try to survive against the one counter attack the spawn timer would allow.

In Planetside 2, three of the most coordinated and skilled players in the world would have a hard time taking a outpost against ten people. For seven minutes, the defenders get to spawn an infinite number of times, and the attackers have to lock down three totally separate flags.

Planetside 2 lacks decisive objective points, which are what coordinated groups thrive around. Notice how the really organized outfits in Planetside 1 would specialize in things such as rapid resecures of control consoles, and generator holds. These small constricted areas, with limited entrance points, reduced the effectiveness of having more numbers. This in turn made coordination and small arms tactics determine the victor.

Finally, the other problem. There is very little actual teamwork options offered to players.

Now, people will point out Medics, engineers repairing MAXes, ect. The problem is that these are caste society jobs. I hardly consider someone following a MAX suit with his repair tool out, holding down Mouse 1, teamwork.

Small Outfits in Planetside 1 would typically have every single person be an advanced medic. This meant that literally everyone could revive a teammate. However, reviving involved standing still over their body for several seconds. This made it necessary to have someone cover the medic. In another example, rather then magical ammo boxes that dispense infinite bullets and rockets, everyone had an inventory, and could share their own ammo with squad mates, in order to stretch limited supplies between them.

Little design decisions like this made teamwork an active process. Something that you planned to do, and made sacrifices accordingly, rather then simply did because of the class you chose while respawning. And in return, teamwork was way, way more rewarding, letting every single person in the game potentially be able to revive you, or share his ammo with you.

Small squads do not have enough decisive objectives, and they do not have enough tools for more coordination to make them more powerful. I could elaborate on solutions for these two problems, but solutions for either one would be as TL : DR as this post is.

[Qwan]

Give all bases a meaningful benefit that hurts to lose. Put a couple of generators in defensible locations at the bases. If the gens are blown, the base benefit is gone.

Smaller groups will target these for destruction. In turn, smaller groups will respond.

The base benefits need to be reviewed for this to work though. As they are now, no one will care if they lose a bioloab or amp station benefit.

This would be a nice.
Also I would like to say bringing back the rek, for those that dont know it was a device used for hacking in PS1 any class could get it (exept maxes of course) if you spent the certs, In PS2 the only hacker is the infiltrator class. I think they should make it so that any class can hack as long as you spend the certs for the skill or (rek), this will free up a slots, when you want to make a squad with medics, engi's and maxes. Sometimes when assaulting a base you forget to bring a cloaker and then your stuck without a hacker to hack turrets and terminals. I think they should make the Rek common pool if you spend the certs.
@Scourge Making it so that all players can bring back other players, maybe not as fast and effective as the medic class but if a heavy assualt can bend over and hit you with a stem pack and get your ass back (maybe with half health or quarter health)to the fight this would make smaller squads more effective, in small unit operations, because sometimes the medic isnt in the same room.

[ItZMuRdA]

There are two major reasons I see for the lack of options for small squads...

Really liked this post -- hit home to much of the gameplay I remember from PS1 and even made me realize a few reasons why PS2 is so different that I hadn't thought of prior. Thanks for the contribution, Scourge.

You too, kidRiot, glad to see outfits like FC and HT getting involved in the thread. While the game in its current state isn't bad by any means, I do think we could have a more enjoyable and effective small squad experience, and hopefully we all can make a difference right here.

Thanks again guys -- keep it up.

p.s. happy anniversary.

[Aveox]

The respawn timer for a tower was 20 seconds, and it took a Advanced Hacker 22 seconds to complete a hack. This meant that you could clear the control console, get the hack off, and then try to survive against the one counter attack the spawn timer would allow.

I mentioned the exact same thing on my outfit forums the other day when we discussed tower design. PS2 is desperately missing intelligent design decisions like this. The typical PS1 tower was in fact a masterpiece of base design: Defenders would come up from the basement; Attackers typically dropped in from the roof, putting the CC right in the middle and allowing for push/pull warfare on the stairs.
The stairway design itself allowed for cover yet is wide enough that it doesn't become a chokepoint.
Doors were placed between the spawn point and CC, allowing the option to cut off the defenders and in turn give defenders the option to deny attackers access to the CC from the ground level.
None of this is in PS2's swiss cheese buildings.

[ThatGoatGuy]

Am I the only one who thinks that the OP proves that bases are near indefensible?

[Hmr85]

There are two major reasons I see for the lack of options for small squads...

QFT!!

This is absolutely spot on and I couldn't agree more. Well said.

[Stanis]

There are two major reasons I see for the lack of options for small squads.

First off, the objective system. In the original Planetside, you could drop on top of a tower with three people. If you were a very coordinated team, you could defeat ten or more enemies within the tower, and begin hacking the tower. The respawn timer for a tower was 20 seconds, and it took a Advanced Hacker 22 seconds to complete a hack. This meant that you could clear the control console, get the hack off, and then try to survive against the one counter attack the spawn timer would allow.



I'd always thought the developers gave us the capture points and satellites with a similar mechanic so that we are supposedly getting many attacks and counter-attacks per successful takeover of a hex. Forcing us to keep fighting.

Wait until lattice goes live. The satellites become major speedbumps.

They may need to take some 'hexes' out of the links. They can be 'secured' to provide a temporary spawn/terminals but don't count for overall territory control.
We will lack anything really similar to the PS1 towers.

[Stanis]

Combat has evolved on miller - we don't have many huge outfits fielding several platoons each but we do have alliances.

War has escalated to the point where its platoons v. platoons in attack and defence.


We need objectives that make a difference to force organised players to respond.
We can't get their attention and pull them to another continent, that aspect of gameplay isn't present.

We've had facility benefits mentioned time and again.

We have no resource flow to interdict
No channels of reinforcement or material to attack

There are few locations where a determined squad can setup shop and create a distraction or nuisance that the enemy have to respond - because unless the hex is at risk of capture nothing else really matters.


I had put a post up a long time ago that each hex that wasn't a main base needed purpose.
Indar Comm Array - there is a clue in the name.
For each main facility there should be a comm array (resource income), capitol shield generator (big av/aa shield), uplink centre (radar/interlink benefit)

Sub bases that matter to have these benefits passed across the continent but also to this specific base.
Lattice changes means theres won't be at risk - so the idea doesn't translate.

Right now its a big deathmatch

[NewSith]

There are two major reasons I see for the lack of options for small squads.

First off, the objective system. In the original Planetside, you could drop on top of a tower with three people. If you were a very coordinated team, you could defeat ten or more enemies within the tower, and begin hacking the tower. The respawn timer for a tower was 20 seconds, and it took a Advanced Hacker 22 seconds to complete a hack. This meant that you could clear the control console, get the hack off, and then try to survive against the one counter attack the spawn timer would allow.

In Planetside 2, three of the most coordinated and skilled players in the world would have a hard time taking a outpost against ten people. For seven minutes, the defenders get to spawn an infinite number of times, and the attackers have to lock down three totally separate flags.

Planetside 2 lacks decisive objective points, which are what coordinated groups thrive around. Notice how the really organized outfits in Planetside 1 would specialize in things such as rapid resecures of control consoles, and generator holds. These small constricted areas, with limited entrance points, reduced the effectiveness of having more numbers. This in turn made coordination and small arms tactics determine the victor.

With part 2, I agree. With this however I do not. During beta, the maximum capture time on an outpost was 40 seconds, plus the adjacency time reduction. 10 people were almost always losing to 5 attacking persons (imagine what a steamroll it was in a zerg). The reason for that was not the timer mechanic, but a thing that still haunts auraxis - CP positions which allow attackers to orchestrate a spawn position closer than the defenders' spawn room. In fact there waaaaay to many architectural faults in the game.

[Rahabib]

I think the game may be too far removed for meaningful outcomes for any size squads.

1) resources are too plentiful. Lattice doesn't change this. even if they make things more expensive, the fact is because every single base or territory generates resources you can't cut off resources to add higher level of strategy to the game.
fix- make it so that only the main 9 large bases generate resources and the smaller bases are simply connectors for resource flow. lose a base its a big deal. lose a connector, resources cant transfer but the base can still generate vehicles you need but only at that base until the connection is made.

2) Bases are too easily captured. The flow of battle is: take a base, watch it be retaken within a few minutes. The lattice helps but the micro-battle instances to actually retake the base remains unchanged. More force-fields, more generators, etc. will help this. gens are a good way for small units to make a difference, but there are not enough that battles can spread out to make defense viable. Most bases ,IMO, should have multiple gens to take out and more bases should have them. I also would like to see game play like hacking, scramblers (for anti-hacking), CTF (bases with items that can be captured then transplanted at your base to steal technology, etc.)

3) meaningful squad mechanics. even large scale squads don't have much incentive to stay in that squad. sure its fun to chat with friends and use a squad beacon, but beyond that, there isn't much depth. It will be nice once we have way points and outfit/squad benefit bonuses (eg. as your squad can hold a special facility the whole outfit gains a bonus to resources, XP, or special vehicles. Eg. Hold the interlink facility your outfit gets faster instant actions, etc.

[Gatekeeper]

and XP FOR SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING BASES, WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT IN YET HIGGLES?!
It was there in beta but got taken out for various reasons: One of them being that it made the game play more boring, having to wait for the defend timer all the time. The other being that it got exploited.

That makes no sense to me because those exact same flaws are present in the current system for capture xp.

The core problem here is that PS2 forces you to wait at the base in order for it to credit you with any xp for the base capture/defence, and gives you 100% of that xp regardless of whether you were there for the whole fight or just for the last 10 seconds.

To fix this (and thus negate any objections to awarding defence xp) just use PS1's system: award xp for base capture/defence regardless of whether you're still at the base when the fight ends - but award a proportion of the xp total based on how much of the fight you were present for.

Scaling the capture/defence xp based on the number of people present during the fight and/or the number of kills would also help to avoid exploits and cut down on ghost capping. Again, PS1 did this and it worked fine - so I've never understood why PS2 doesn't.

[Rahabib]

So am I the only one who thinks that XP bonuses shouldnt be the answer to everything? Cause it is, and a lot of suggestions here seem to continue with this. certs to me is way too shallow to be utilized. If things are not working out the way you want, there is no penalty, you just redeploy somewhere where you can get certs. Isnt that whats happening now?

[Snydenthur]

2) Bases are too easily captured. The flow of battle is: take a base, watch it be retaken within a few minutes. The lattice helps but the micro-battle instances to actually retake the base remains unchanged. More force-fields, more generators, etc. will help this. gens are a good way for small units to make a difference, but there are not enough that battles can spread out to make defense viable. Most bases ,IMO, should have multiple gens to take out and more bases should have them. I also would like to see game play like hacking, scramblers (for anti-hacking), CTF (bases with items that can be captured then transplanted at your base to steal technology, etc.)

Attacking a base isn't easy by default, if people would actually defend. It's just that every time there is even a slight sign of losing, people lock themselves to the spawnroom to farm kills. If they actually left the spawnroom to try to take the cap point(s) back, then we would know for sure which is easier in this game.

Defenders have the upperhand. They have a safe place to spawn, kill the couple obvious enemies watching the spawnroom, push out and take the point back. If the enemy has a sundy nearby, they can first push to take it down and after that take the points. If sundy is far away, it's not the first concern anyways.

[Crator]

Attacking a base isn't easy by default, if people would actually defend. It's just that every time there is even a slight sign of losing, people lock themselves to the spawnroom to farm kills. If they actually left the spawnroom to try to take the cap point(s) back, then we would know for sure which is easier in this game.

Defenders have the upperhand. They have a safe place to spawn, kill the couple obvious enemies watching the spawnroom, push out and take the point back. If the enemy has a sundy nearby, they can first push to take it down and after that take the points. If sundy is far away, it's not the first concern anyways.

This is actually one of the main issues with PS2 vs. PS1. People don't lock themselves into the spawn room, typically. They are pinned in the spawn room, away from capture points, due to enemy air/vehicles keeping them from getting there.

[NewSith]

Attacking a base isn't easy by default, if people would actually defend. It's just that every time there is even a slight sign of losing, people lock themselves to the spawnroom to farm kills. If they actually left the spawnroom to try to take the cap point(s) back, then we would know for sure which is easier in this game.

Defenders have the upperhand. They have a safe place to spawn, kill the couple obvious enemies watching the spawnroom, push out and take the point back. If the enemy has a sundy nearby, they can first push to take it down and after that take the points. If sundy is far away, it's not the first concern anyways.

How come it was never like that in PlanetSide? You think people there were different?

I can point out at least 3 things you think wrong, but the point is not to prove you wrong, but to make you reconsider why the situations like that occur.

[Rahabib]

...
Defenders have the upperhand. They have a safe place to spawn, kill the couple obvious enemies watching the spawnroom, push out and take the point back. If the enemy has a sundy nearby, they can first push to take it down and after that take the points. If sundy is far away, it's not the first concern anyways.

Theres not really a good counter for vehicles camping the spawn. You cant fire missiles out, and the minute you pop out you are toast.

The problems is that the battles can be over before the defense even knows whats up, even with a lattice. Sure the base hasn't flipped but you cant do anything to stop it once the spawn is surrounded.

[GeoGnome]

What smaller groups need: A way to contribute to the battle, that separates them from the main fight, but allows them to contribute.

People say: More defensible bases, but to be honest, I don't want to see bases in PS2, where 1-2 squads can hold off MULTIPLE PLATOONS. That is ridiculous, and I am someone who almost exclusively rolls with 1-2 squad sized groups.

I think Combat Engineering is a step in the right direction. The small groups shouldn't necessarily have to be Directly involved with things if they were allowed some kind of specialization to take.

Battle Galaxies, Battle Sunderers, vehicles that require 12 people to operate and use effectively... More objectives that are point defense and Very tough to crack. Narrow cooridors that can be breached effectively by fewer people, but a large zerg would just get funneled. More defensible POINTS, not bases.

I tend to agree with Rahabib that XP rewards aren't as key here, as just Giving people something to do.

My other real hope, is that the resource revamp will give smaller groups something fun, but I feel if I beat that particular horse anymore, it'll be paste by the time July rolls around.

[Hmr85]

I highly recommend a lot of you guys use this free 6 months for PS1 that appears to be rolling out today. I believe then a lot of you newer guys will understand what needs to be done to fix this game on a squad level and beyond. Look at the base designs looks at what can be accomplished with small spec op squads. Look at everything.

[Qwan]

We need objectives that make a difference to force organised players to respond.
We can't get their attention and pull them to another continent, that aspect of gameplay isn't present.


This I can see in the future Stanis, as they push the lattice system out to the other continents, and some how connect these continents using the lattice, there really is no reason to leave a continent, UNLESS there about to loose there 10% cost bonus :rolleyes: Yeaaaaa. From my understanding only one continent will have the lattice and thats Indar. In PS1 the lattice system went threw warp gates and connected facilitys, if the base was hacked on the other side of that warpgate then guess what you need to be ready to defend. In PS2 is more like a large map with shielded bases, for each faction, I agree with some players when you say that its just a open match free for all, and I dont want to sound greedy, or like a spoiled PS1 brat who is used to more involved game play but, when we take a continent in PS2 I sit back and wonder is the match over now, only felt that a couple of times in PS1 and thats when we turned the world purple. :)

[Stanis]

I highly recommend a lot of you guys use this free 6 months for PS1 that appears to be rolling out today. I believe then a lot of you newer guys will understand what needs to be done to fix this game on a squad level and beyond. Look at the base designs looks at what can be accomplished with small spec op squads. Look at everything.

A squad in PS was 12 people and something like 6% of the population on the continent.

A platoon in PS2 is 48 people and is about 7% of the population on the continent.


Had this chat with our PS1 guys when we simply couldn't do as much - that's because with great power comes .. umm no thats not it. It's a case of scaling up the map population scaled up pretty much everything else.

When we throw platoons around the map - strategically, tactically - it feels a lot like PS1.
when you try to do something with a squad, spread out over swiss cheese bases with dynamic combat, satellites and capture points you soon realise you haven't got enough size to achieve as much without more team.

As for PS1 I might play it. I doubt. It was a great game - however it has it's flaws.
It was brilliant for the revival weekends (when PS2 got announced) - it had people in it - but the graphics, gunplay, waiting, corridor spam, lockdown maxes in a tower .. it had its fair share of amazing gameplay for it's time.
But I do mean 'for it's time' without using rose tinted glasses.

[Stanis]

This I can see in the future Stanis, as they push the lattice system out to the other continents, and some how connect these continents using the lattice, there really is no reason to leave a continent, UNLESS there about to loose there 10% cost bonus :rolleyes: Yeaaaaa.

Most of our problems can be resolved by more continents.
I expected a continent every month or every other month for the first year or two.

Lots of development time on pushing those out - because quite frankly irrespective of gunplay - the strategic and tactical depth of PS1 came from its continental warfare.

I know developers can only do one thing and the art guys dont work on balance.
But if there is a budget for continent design I expected it to be front load over the first 18 months of the project and then we get maybe a new core continent every 6 months with a more generic 'player continents' on a global warfare schedule.

[Shundara]

I prefer the base hacking method from PS1. I enjoyed the feel of a cc capture as opposed to the way bases are taken now.

Also the layout of the objectives being open to vehicle spam makes it hard for small squads. I liked when people were forced out of their vehicles to capture something. I find myself being forced into playing infil more than I care to because of this. Perhaps one master gen that is harder to take down could help this.

I'm sure some people love SCU's but I hate them. I like to shoot people, not stand around. :)

[Rahabib]

The rest of the game was not good, but one thing I liked from Brink was the way hacking worked. You place a hack device and the further away from the terminal the slower it hacked. You could swap to guns but then the hack process started rolling back. You can have multiple devices to make hacking go faster as well (up to I think 3). Something like that could work for hacking without making it boring. You can still cover an objective by yourself in smaller outposts as well.

Then to add on, you can have an engy place a scrambler within an area that makes hacking slow down. Then you have to go and blow it up to speed up the hack. Maybe put points behind doors that need C4 to blow up to gain access so you can't just ghost hack. Once the door is blow up, an alarm goes off that anyone in the area sees and can react to. there is just so much more this game could do.

Small squads who effectively implement a take and hold would have a lot of fun with more to do.

[Snydenthur]

How come it was never like that in PlanetSide? You think people there were different?

I can point out at least 3 things you think wrong, but the point is not to prove you wrong, but to make you reconsider why the situations like that occur.

I don't know, I have never played planetside 1, since I haven't liked how the game plays. Probably people were different. My experience is that people played more as a team back in the early 2000 than nowadays.

Vehicles and air pinning down the spawnroom isn't the explanation. This happens in biolabs too. If you have platoon of people inside a spawnroom against attackers, who have to be all over the place, making a concentrated rush out of the spawnroom is very effective. But since you lose a lot of xp (you might even die and have to respawn somewhere else!)for doing that instead of just killing stupid people from a safe place, you don't see that often.

[camycamera]

That makes no sense to me because those exact same flaws are present in the current system for capture xp.

The core problem here is that PS2 forces you to wait at the base in order for it to credit you with any xp for the base capture/defence, and gives you 100% of that xp regardless of whether you were there for the whole fight or just for the last 10 seconds.

To fix this (and thus negate any objections to awarding defence xp) just use PS1's system: award xp for base capture/defence regardless of whether you're still at the base when the fight ends - but award a proportion of the xp total based on how much of the fight you were present for.

Scaling the capture/defence xp based on the number of people present during the fight and/or the number of kills would also help to avoid exploits and cut down on ghost capping. Again, PS1 did this and it worked fine - so I've never understood why PS2 doesn't.

exactly what i was going to say. some old things from PS1 like that would work in PS2.

[Qwan]

Most of our problems can be resolved by more continents.
I expected a continent every month or every other month for the first year or two.

Lots of development time on pushing those out - because quite frankly irrespective of gunplay - the strategic and tactical depth of PS1 came from its continental warfare.

I know developers can only do one thing and the art guys dont work on balance.
But if there is a budget for continent design I expected it to be front load over the first 18 months of the project and then we get maybe a new core continent every 6 months with a more generic 'player continents' on a global warfare schedule.

I feel ya on this one I think that more continents will resolve some of the issues, but I feel that just putting out more continents wont do the job, I think they have to be somehow connected. I mean right now you have 3 factions, 3 types of resources, so the 3 continents work for now, and a lot of gamers who never played PS1 dont know what there missing, when you got ten continents to fight over, its bigger and a little more complicated, but its so much *&^% fun. In the long run they have to figure out a way of connecting these continents or else this game is gonna fell like BF3, or CoD, were your just switching maps, at the end of each session.

I prefer the base hacking method from PS1. I enjoyed the feel of a cc capture as opposed to the way bases are taken now.
Also the layout of the objectives being open to vehicle spam makes it hard for small squads. I liked when people were forced out of their vehicles to capture something. I find myself being forced into playing infil more than I care to because of this. Perhaps one master gen that is harder to take down could help this.
I'm sure some people love SCU's but I hate them. I like to shoot people, not stand around. :)

Good point Shundara, you hit it right on the money, by placing spawn boxes underground or within the facility's, this would kill the vehicle spam and spawn box camping. The tunnels helped alot, but I still see players going out the front door when the spawn box is surrounded, but this is because there trying to get to the SCU which there is no tunnel to. Smaller bases still suffer from vehicle spam because the boxes are out in the open.

As a suggestion I think they should make one base just like one of the old bases from PS1, I mean right down to the stair well that goes up the side of the courtyard wall. The spawn boxes on these bases were inside and the CC was inside as well. I think they should do it as just an experiment. I guarantee you there would be some epic battles there, and some good old door to door infantry fights (thumper not included :lol:).

[Snydenthur]

I feel ya on this one I think that more continents will resolve some of the issues, but I feel that just putting out more continents wont do the job, I think they have to be somehow connected. I mean right now you have 3 factions, 3 types of resources, so the 3 continents work for now, and a lot of gamers who never played PS1 dont know what there missing, when you got ten continents to fight over, its bigger and a little more complicated, but its so much *&^% fun. In the long run they have to figure out a way of connecting these continents or else this game is gonna fell like BF3, or CoD, were your just switching maps, at the end of each session.

I hope they won't be adding more continents any time soon. There's not enough players on servers to even fill out two continents, having ten of them would kill the game. And even if they get enough players to have a good games on ten continents, they have to find a way to balance the population and fix the servers. If 2000 players on an alert cause the game to lag enough for people to log out, what would 10k-20k people on a server do?

Yeah, I know there won't be 10 continents any time soon, but I'm concerned about it already. If the population was growing, I wouldn't be concerned.

[Qwan]

I hope they won't be adding more continents any time soon. There's not enough players on servers to even fill out two continents, having ten of them would kill the game. And even if they get enough players to have a good games on ten continents, they have to find a way to balance the population and fix the servers. If 2000 players on an alert cause the game to lag enough for people to log out, what would 10k-20k people on a server do?

Yeah, I know there won't be 10 continents any time soon, but I'm concerned about it already. If the population was growing, I wouldn't be concerned.

I think they will start merging servers as time passes and as more continents continue to be developed, this will be done to keep servers full. As far as alerts I think they will eventually go away, If I guess correctly right now the devs see a spike in log ins when ever an alert is going off. Its what I do most of the time ( I also have twin baby's so my time is limited) but I dont see alerts in the future of the game, but I do see sever merges as they put out new continents.

[Crator]

I hope they won't be adding more continents any time soon. There's not enough players on servers to even fill out two continents, having ten of them would kill the game. And even if they get enough players to have a good games on ten continents, they have to find a way to balance the population and fix the servers. If 2000 players on an alert cause the game to lag enough for people to log out, what would 10k-20k people on a server do?

Yeah, I know there won't be 10 continents any time soon, but I'm concerned about it already. If the population was growing, I wouldn't be concerned.

It's not necessary to fill all continents at the same time though. Two to three at a time is ideal. Also, removing 3 empire footholds on each continent and having only one home continent per empire with a lattice that connects warpgates between other continents is a must! Constant 3-way battles produce stagnant movement across a continent. This is true even in PS1. When it did happen in PS1 a tactic to break it up would be to attack one of the other empire's continents so they would break the 3-way fight. Didn't always work and was more successful when more population was on.