Any plans on making base capture have more options?

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Malorn

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

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

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

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

[Duddy]

Originally Posted by I SandRock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dagron]

Originally Posted by I SandRock

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

Originally Posted by JHendy

I agree. Well put.

QFT

[The Kush]

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

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Duddy

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

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

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

I also highly disagree that ANT runs were not challenging.

[Duddy]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

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

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

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

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Duddy

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

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

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

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

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by The Kush

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

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

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

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

[Gonefshn]

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

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

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

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

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

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

I do not believe I said that.

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

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

[Duddy]

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

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

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

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

[MrBloodworth]

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

There needs to be SOMETHING, that requires classes.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Spoof

Gone, thank God.

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

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

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

Again, SOMETHING needs to require classes.

[Duddy]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Again, SOMETHING needs to require classes.

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

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

[KTNApollo]

Originally Posted by Spoof

Gone, thank God.

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

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