Cont Lock finally?

[ringring]

Thanks for the updates Muldoon


On a different note this highlights again how much the game is twisting and turning because production on new continents is so slow or wasn't done prior to launch.

The version of continent locking wanted is very simple but requires several continents than we have now - in their absence we get this above and WDS too, both of which are more complicated and less satisfying.

I would say (with tongue in my cheek) that all of this should be part of a 'lessons learnt' review - you should have the important stuff in before launch because sure as shootin' it will be harder afterwards.

[Figment]

Regarding the NDZ, I find it ironic it is okay to park a tank next to a spawnpoint and actually having the ability to completely control a base through that far more annoying.


Both NDZ and spawn camping are down to base design being based on Suiss cheese instead of internal fortresses with layered defense:

From out to in:

Anything goes -> field combat: (air) vehicles dominant
Base walls -> siege gameplay A: vehicles dominant
Courtyard -> breach gameplay: courtyard shields as first objective, access to inner area second objective. Vehicles not dominant but present
Inner base first level: Infantry can hold this without too much influence from vehicles
Inner base second level: infantry vs infantry only
Inner base third level: primary objectives and spawn, infantry only.

The NDZ was created because the primary objective was paved in the courtyard level for most outposts. Holding your ground is made next to impossible.

[Illtempered]

Stop catering to nubs and just make the game good. Build it and they will come.

[Illtempered]

11am Central and Mattherson is completely dead....

Not one hotspot for my empire when I logged in...

This game is dying, and in my most HUMBLE opinion, it is mainly because of the development mindset exhibited in this very thread. This game was supposed to be special. Nay, it had to be special. We all knew that. Ten years ago this franchise was absolutely revolutionary and ahead of it's time. That's why I was putting my money on Planetside instead of the plethora of other shooters that were out at the time.

We poured thousands of hours, and thousands of dollars into this franchise because we knew it was special. Now it's gasping for breath and it might just be time to put the poor horse down for good and wait for the next special thing to show up.

Edit to show that I have posted threads with constructive criticism http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=58070

Most of these ideas I would bet, can be agreed upon by people who understand this game. Instead of getting any of this, we got implants that can be monetized. Surprise surprise.

[VaderShake]

Originally Posted by Illtempered

it might just be time to put the poor horse down for good and wait for the next special thing to show up.

And what will that be? Battlefield Hardlines? (vomits in mouth)

Bottom line is in the world of FPS war games PS2 is still revolutionary on scale and scope and there is nothing else out there that can even touch it in that department point blank.

No one else is even stretching past 64 players in FPS's on the PC or shared any plans to.

Been playing video games since Pong in 1978 and there are very few titles out there that even remotely perk my interest as something new or interesting.

Like it or not PS2 is still revolutionary in it's current state but SOE could have done more to set it apart for sure. Then the H1Z1 announcement..ugh..

E3 is next week...they better show us something good...

[Sarloh]

Planetside 2 is what I like to call; the holy grail of gaming. There is no game like it. It has elements of: FPS, MMO, RPG, strategy, driving, flying, not to mention 2000 angry hippies and rebels pointing their guns in your face on a 64 km2 map. 3 of them actually.

Planetside 2 IS the ultimate game.

[Figment]

Well tbh, this is one of the reasons I proposed to create LARGER servers with copies of continents, and over time start replacing continents as new continents would become available to take the place of the old.

This way, we would have long seen 10-15 continents, even if they're duplicates, but with servers so full that we wouldn't really feel them emptying for a long time. IMO, there were FAR too many servers for PS2 at launch. :/

Although at launch, it was still in beta really. :/ Most of the stuff that has to be implemented still is.

[Figment]

I think the problem is they think people would spam en mass. Though that might be the an extra argument. Too many objects for the game to handle might be more likely. Remember how they didn't want to do backpacks due to it meaning 25% less people on screen and all the problems with people disappearing in beta?

[Babyfark McGeez]

In my opinion, base (and also continent) design is still the crucial flaw of PS2, and cont locks won't help there (allthough it's nice to finally see the core game mechanic come into play...took some bloody time). I last played in march, so i will just assume here they didn't magically change all bases in the past months.

Bases in PS2 have been designed in a non-linear fashion, clearly with TDM, conquest (BF) or domination (UT) modes in mind. PS1 bases on the other hand were more designed like an assault map (UT), linear with several, well seperated "stages" and an "arena" courtyard. Just compare videos of the two UT game-modes "Assault" (PS1) and "Domination" (PS2), and then look at the new, atrocious merry-go-round, AMP Station layout, you should recognize the problem.
Additonally in PS2 i don't recall many bases (except maybe biolabs) that offer a way to their own objective protected from vehicles / aircraft fire.
Those two flaws still existed in pretty much ALL bases. They did slooowly change some bases, but atleast on amerish that mostly resulted in stretching out bases and making defenders run even further through unprotected "arena" territory. The only base that, from a strategic viewpoint, was done well, was subterrenean something. It just felt horribly designed in every other aspect, confusing, cube-ish, full of elevator pads and with invisible "force fields"...oh boy...but the idea behind it was right.

And continent design itself is the other problem. They shot themselves in the foot so hard with the choice to friggin' handcraft every single area. I mean, that's just insane.
Some of the bases will barely ever see a fight anyways, and since size/number of continents is one of the most crucial points of PS and what's currently holding this game back it's just a mindbogglingly bad decision imo. It would have made much more sense to just find a couple of good (assault type) base designs, and copy+paste them over the landscape. You can allways change them later. Same goes for the landscape and terrain.

Sure it may look less gorgeous, but considering having many connected continents is the heart, the whole point if you will, of planetside (without them it's just "big maps"), i'd say it's necessary. I mean how long did it take them again to get out Hossin? Which is just continent number four i might add. Are there even any plans for the next one? When will we see Searhus hm?

Tl;Dr: Wrong priorities in the map design process (for a PS game) lead to the lack of continents, without which Planetside can't really work how it should/could. Same applies to bases, additionally the focus on TDM/Arena gameplay instead of Assault/Objective based gameplay results in pointless bases.
So even though i will probably check PS2 out again when cont locking is in, i don't see how cont locking can fix these underlying basic flaws in design and method. Next arena continent in 2016.

[Figment]

Agreed completely, though I think there's need for some clearance in terminology as we both used "linear base design", but defined it differently.

I used linear in the sense that they literally designed it in a single line, without considering that you can step around that line. Your definition of linear means basically a convergent sink hole: from whatever direction you come, you'll end up having to go through the same order of lines of defense in order to get through the total defense.

Hopefully that should prevent a dev reading this from missing the point:

Combat flow was linear staged in PS1 with a fortress setup, because it accounted for 360 degrees combat, with a few openings in a few lines and only the VS MAX (being dependent on others) being an exemption. PS2 otoh requires 1080 degrees combat to be linear staged (thanks to jetpacks, jetpacks everywhere), but is often only simply linear in one vector direction (in all other directions, you can simply ignore all defensive lines) and indeed, provides an arena map situation + tanks and aircraft.

That results in such a different gameplay... :/

But it's so hard to get this message through it seems.

[Illtempered]

I still contend that base design, and the whole game in general, was better at launch. Yeah nubs were getting owned by air because nobody had AA. Yeah some bases were too easily spawn-camped. So what? Those bases were for the most part the small and insignificant ones. I never wanted all bases to be the same anyway. The major facilities on the other hand, were hard to take. You had to take those gens out first, before being able to make a serious assault.

Bunch of wasted dev time....

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Illtempered

I still contend that base design, and the whole game in general, was better at launch. Yeah nubs were getting owned by air because nobody had AA. Yeah some bases were too easily spawn-camped. So what? Those bases were for the most part the small and insignificant ones. I never wanted all bases to be the same anyway. The major facilities on the other hand, were hard to take. You had to take those gens out first, before being able to make a serious assault.

Bunch of wasted dev time....

Bases that make players log or quit the fight because it's pointless aren't worth having in the game.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Illtempered

I still contend that base design, and the whole game in general, was better at launch. Yeah nubs were getting owned by air because nobody had AA. Yeah some bases were too easily spawn-camped. So what? Those bases were for the most part the small and insignificant ones. I never wanted all bases to be the same anyway. The major facilities on the other hand, were hard to take. You had to take those gens out first, before being able to make a serious assault.

Bunch of wasted dev time....

We don't need these fortresses we have now... but we also didn't need control consoles placed where defending them is just about impossible. In PS1, base assaults that lasted hours and sometimes days were some of the most memorable moments and some of the best.

I for one would like a more procedural siege system. Links help, but they are only part of the solution.

[RSphil]

looking forward to see how this changes the fighting. its taking a while but new things are coming and it will only get better.

[Azzzz]

Not to bash SOE but they do have a track record of releasing content that well...breaks other things.

I too look forward to the cont lock but suspect it will take a couple updates when first released before we see the full impact.