Cont Lock finally?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

If mines were not quite so powerful or able to be placed so close together, it wouldn't be a problem.

Where have I seen BOTH been done? >.>

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Figment

Where have I seen BOTH been done? >.>

I dunno Brain, SNARK!

[Stanis]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

If mines were not quite so powerful or able to be placed so close together, it wouldn't be a problem.

I hope at some point for an engineer class revamp.
In which we get the option to deploy a minefield and deny area.

In a way mines are missing their actual purpose massively. It shouldn't be about sneaky traps on a vehicle pad or getting one in position.

It's supposed to be about shutting down a section of road until clear.
It's like most static defences : missing the point.

[Mordelicius]

Originally Posted by Stanis

I hope at some point for an engineer class revamp.
In which we get the option to deploy a minefield and deny area.

In a way mines are missing their actual purpose massively. It shouldn't be about sneaky traps on a vehicle pad or getting one in position.

It's supposed to be about shutting down a section of road until clear.
It's like most static defences : missing the point.

I've argued that a mine-field ability is best suited for Flash gameplay in my Flash Revamp thread: http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=57229

As for Anti-infantry minefield, it has to be an AI mine sidegrade, that doesn't encroach on other grenade/C4 abilities, or else it becomes a grenade/c4 upgrade instead of a sidegrade. Imagine players thrwoing/dropping this in a cluster of players.

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

....

Special Flash Abilites - The Flash need more special abilities.

Sidegrade: Flash Shield Ball - Using the F key
- covers the Flash in a ball of shield that can absorb a fixed amount of damage for 5 seconds.
- The Flash cannot shoot while in this state and cannot roadkill players (just pushes them with no damage)
- The Flash cannot shoot for 5 seconds after the shield wears off (to prevent it from being abused).
- This would act as an escape mechanism, nothing more.

Sidegrade: Scatter Mini-Mine Field (damage) - Again using the F key scatters tiny mines (6-8) around the Flash
- Can be activated at any time.
- The mines would be invisible to enemies.
- 1 minefield active per Flash. Has 3 charges (can be reloaded) with 3-5 minute cooldown per use (so it's not spammable).
- The damages will be small but enough to injure Tanks/Harassers/Sundies
- Activated only by vehicles and will not hurt infantry, just their shields.
- Perfect for laying traps on advancing vehicle columns and eluding vehicles in pursuits
- Dropping them behind tanks is also good if they try to back away.

Sidegrade: Scatter Mini-Mine Field (disable)
- Similar to above but the mines will disable/slow the vehicle for 5-10 seconds
- Will not damage the vehicle.
- The more times it has been hit, the slower it becomes.
- Again, a different means for trapping attacking vehicles, making them vulnerable to allies.
- Also good for escaping.

Sidegrade: Tank/Harasser Jammer
- Weapon will be mounted in the Primary weapon slot
- Maintain lock on target vehicle up to 10 seconds
- Cooldown 1-1:30 minutes.
- Vehicle cannot fire when being jammed
- Not applicable to deployed Sunderers.

....

[Mordelicius]

Originally Posted by Figment

The analogy doesn't quite work: defenders may be subject to different rules. In the sports analogy above, offense can be off-side, defense can not be since it's their side of the pitch. Hence defenders can spawn in the spawnbuilding, but the attacker cannot. Or, in PS1, defenders could use /b in their SOI, while attackers could not.

Yet, nobody was allowed to HART in within a SOI, to prevent bypassing of the defensive lines in order for defense to have a chance. You're better off describing why equal rules should be applied in this case, than that "it's natural". Remember, we wern't allowed to place vehicles at certain points near doors in PS1, due to potential blocking abuse.

Their only official argument is the attacker spawn should be equidistant to the defender spawn with regards to the capture point. That falls flat in two logical areas:

- Attacker Sundy spawn is destructible and defender Spawn room is not (false equivalency).
- Defenders can drop a sundy spawn in a capture point while Attackers cannot (reciprocity).

The defenders have been parking Sundies next to the Capture point for about a year now since the NDZ. The very fact that the Developers don't find that imbalanced, is further proof that the attacker NDZ is moot and should be removed asap, or at the very least for the sake of testing/compromise, limit it to 10-20 feet and see if makes any difference at all. If not, simply remove it all.

Only downside is health (armour/hitpoints). Snipers did fine in PS1 without stealth. I've always been of the opinion it's too easy to have snipefils run around cloaked. Same for headshots being instant kills a lot leaving too little survivability to become situationally aware for a lot of people.

Then give the Snipers equivalent HP. That's a not a biggie at all as opposed to having stacked abilities that's in synergy with one another ( long range + stealth + one-hit = broken/OP combo abilities). What Snipers do is stealth, hide under covers, aim, unstealth, shoot for the head. Repeat.

Hence, the stealth ability for snipers ought to be removed.

Better but not perfect either. A valid strategic target, but should IMO just be tied to control of the capture point:

Not captured = can't place AMS due to interference range, but any that had already been placed remain functional.
Captured = can place AMS
Re-captured (by defense) = Massively reset capture progress (not just stop ticker or turn ticker around, defense needs more incentive and reward to regain control of points)

I dislike the "capture point area", manually hacking it is much more immersive, can be countered and provides some teamplay cover or stealth requirements, while providing a priority target to resecuring players (a way to control if a cap goes through.

I don't think people should be made aware of a capture attempt of a point or generator until it succeeds. These points however should be in the natural movement and defensive zones of defenders, so they discover this information themselves and by simply moving around, they already cover these areas of interest (rather than that they have to cross to the other side of the base to intervene). Information on what to do next, should IMO be provided to new players AFTER it happened.


Regardless, HART and Spawn beacons should not allow harting on top of buildings. I much rather deal with people who have to work their way up, than with people who drop behind you and get a free passage beyond your defensive line.

If you think you have a better mechanic, that's good. Make a new thread and perhaps the Developers will read or respond to it. But, I'm not arguing for perfection. I'm arguing for the developer "hands off" or "hands on" philosophy. I'm saying, in the current PS2 live build, the generator mechanic is the best example of a "hands off" approach where players interaction result in gameplay.

If I were to touch a generator to overload it. The enemy side has to shoot me or mine the area to stop it. If they want to fix the generator, I have to stop them as well.

The NDZ simply stops player from parking Sunderers. There's no player interaction or gameplay. That's the point I was trying to make. Their "hands on" approach is hurting PS2. They are simply not mindful of the implications.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

Their only official argument is the attacker spawn should be equidistant to the defender spawn with regards to the capture point. That falls flat in two logical areas:

- Attacker Sundy spawn is destructible and defender Spawn room is not (false equivalency).
- Defenders can drop a sundy spawn in a capture point while Attackers cannot (reciprocity).

Both your logic and SOE's logic is flawed.

The distance the defenders and attackers have to bridge should be proportional to the strength and capacity of either side. Since the attackers have the initiative, usualy have the firepower and the numbers, the distance and rather, the area, the defenders can realistically cover is much shorter. In fact, the attackers just need a breach, while the defenders need control.

The problem is that both you and SOE look at these groups as being equals. They are not. One of the groups bring combined arms to lock down a base, the other has nothing but infantry and maybe a few vehicles (that die within seconds).

The defenders have been parking Sundies next to the Capture point for about a year now since the NDZ. The very fact that the Developers don't find that imbalanced, is further proof that the attacker NDZ is moot and should be removed asap, or at the very least for the sake of testing/compromise, limit it to 10-20 feet and see if makes any difference at all. If not, simply remove it all.

This is a non-sequitor. Yes, the defenders have been parking them there, but the need for defenders is also greater. Your main complaint is that defenders can do something attackers can't. In a way you're right, but NOT in the way you think: neither side should be able to park it right at the CC! Why? Because the CC shouldn't actually be that close to the outside environment. It is simply too easy to dominate with vehicles.

But what I don't get is that you complain about Sunderers being able to get there, while it is far more problematic that Liberators and tanks can control the paths to the CC and lock it down.

If you think you have a better mechanic, that's good. Make a new thread and perhaps the Developers will read or respond to it. But, I'm not arguing for perfection. I'm arguing for the developer "hands off" or "hands on" philosophy. I'm saying, in the current PS2 live build, the generator mechanic is the best example of a "hands off" approach where players interaction result in gameplay.

If I were to touch a generator to overload it. The enemy side has to shoot me or mine the area to stop it. If they want to fix the generator, I have to stop them as well.

The NDZ simply stops player from parking Sunderers. There's no player interaction or gameplay. That's the point I was trying to make. Their "hands on" approach is hurting PS2. They are simply not mindful of the implications.

Whether it's hands on or off doesn't matter. What matters is whether the assignment they give to players is feasible for both sides. Both sides (attack and defense) MUST be able to perform these interactions.

It is for instance quite clear to me they didn't really know how to relate base size to defender numbers. The initial base size has been kept, despite tasking defenders with covering far too many approach routes, thanks primarily to the mere addition of a jetpack.

They designed bases and mechanics, assuming players could cover these things, without realising the amount of coordination and logistics required to do perform these tasks. The amount of defenders required to cover everything is simply too large and these populations are not available. Nor did they seem to have looked at the scenarios of what kind of strategies players would employ to win.

Given the designs and mechanics, camping the defenders was sometimes not only the easiest, but sometimes the only feasible way to win.

One of the problems with these base designs is the linear thought put into it, where oftentimes it is assumed attackers and defenders both start at point X and Y directly opposite to one another and will fight an equidistant distance to control points A, B and C. And maybe D, E and F. In reality, the vectors of attack vary constantly, while the vector of defense do not. Yet the bases were designed around defense against a single vector of assault and required concentrated defense to even hold that.

The same problem exists for counters. Counter-type warfare shouldn't require more numbers than the amount of units attacking. This goes in particular for air cover. It is far too easy to kill AA MAXes as a Liberator crew, to the point that I once killed 9 in two runs, while they never got us down to 20% health, simply because they had too many threats to deal with (both airborne and on the ground). They were dedicated to fight us, yet were made so much weaker than us it would take m a minute to kill us, while we could target ANYTHING on the ground and could kill in one shot or at most a few seconds.

They simply don't understand that dedicated platforms should be extremely strong because you can't afford to have many dedicated platforms in a combined arms game due to the sheer variety of targets while you can only use them against a narrow section of enemies, while jacks of all trades should be weak as you can afford to have many of these and can always use these in any given situation.

Too many players argue from a sense of entitlement, or worse, something I will call "convenient realism hypocrisy" (i.e. they argue something has to be "realistic" the moment it suits them, while they ignore this realism argument for everything else irrealistic that they're fine with). The only thing that matters is game balance, function and that it should result in a competitive environment where everyone stands a chance to perform the job they're assigned to do (ie. what the game mechanics and missions ask of them to create a "win", i.e. win at attack or defense, regardless of population).

[PredatorFour]

Originally Posted by Stanis

I hope at some point for an engineer class revamp.
In which we get the option to deploy a minefield and deny area.

In a way mines are missing their actual purpose massively. It shouldn't be about sneaky traps on a vehicle pad or getting one in position.

It's supposed to be about shutting down a section of road until clear.
It's like most static defences : missing the point.

A bit of a tangent but one of the things i don't get with this game is why tank mines don't light up like AI mines. Surely they should both light up or not at all.

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by Stanis

I hope at some point for an engineer class revamp.
In which we get the option to deploy a minefield and deny area.

This, a thousand times. In the old game we could -- not stop, but slow down enemy tank zergs with our massive minefields of weak all-purpose mines. Combine that with a few offroute Spitfires, and you can buy time for reinforcements to see what's going on and show up. You can also turn small indefensible facilities into zerg-eating black holes -- again, for a short while. The Terran Republic was great at this. It was part and parcel of our corporate culture. It was how we compensated for crappy smallarms and meh vehicles.

Now we have good smallarms and vehicles... but I wonder if we (or the game) are better off.

[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.