Planetside 2 V6 - VS capped Indar? It's more likely than you think - Games

I still get pop locks on occasion so I don't know what you guys are talking about when it comes to the game "slowly dieing" That said if they did the following I garuntee a bunch of old people would hop on again and/or new people would join in.. 1. Actually fix pop imbalance issues on servers that have them. No clue what the solution to this actually is, though 2. Hossin in, now. With ideally the battle islands being optional objectives or connections to hossin. 3. Proper cross-cont warfare, with each faction having a "home" warpgate. This will work better with hossin/battle isles implemented to avoid constant pop locks and other such things. Ideally sanc will be in too so you can actally lose your home warpgate and push out from the sanc 4. Better or more involved rewards for cont capture, especially considering the above might make it actually difficult to do. 5. Fix the lattice by making it so there are more optional/covert-ops things to do in it to allow for a stronger inter-cont metagame. Part of the depth behind the overall metagame in PS1 was that it wasn't ONLY the big battles between bases, it was also the subtle stuff between them that smaller groups could do to influence the overall flow of the fight and tip huge battle stalemates in your favor. Stuff like making it so there are less links on the map (but stuff like small outposts can be captured without any link, as a way to flank), optional objectives like autoturret arrays or radar beacons, a one time orbital strike objective that needs voted on by everyone in command chat, etc. 6. Better inter-territory objective flow. Make it so you actually have to capture points/objectives in order (like Rush for BFBC or Dustbowl for TF2), for you to capture the territory (and have no downtime where you need to wait 10 minutes after capturing the final point to win). More interesting base designs will drastically allow for a variety of different layouts and progression in order to cap, making each territory actually feel unique in capture without needing to do much more work. All of these will dramatically imrprove the actual tactical and strategic gameplay of Planetside 2, which is currently extremely lacking in such areas which hurts every player's long term interest, and makes the game fun to play to kill time on new updates instead of fun to actually invest a real amount of time in. On top of this, the design of the game depends on a strong meta/strategic flow to truely click and it simply hasn't achieved that yet.

That and fix the plethora of bugs that plague the game since release, like the c4 doing fuck all for example.

the game isn't actually losing pop if you look at the api, it's gaining steadily.

five minutes into the game after a month's break, and i'm run over by a battlerank 1 sunderer on my own team it's nice to be back

[QUOTE=finbe;41520320]the game isn't actually losing pop if you look at the api, it's gaining steadily.[/QUOTE] Api? Where?

Some good news to offset the bad. [url]https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/september-resource-revamp.83018/[/url] [quote="JGood"]Our primary goal for re-addressing the resource system is to make sure it does a better job making resources drive the combat taking place, make sure they have real strategic value, and generally have more meaning than they have currently. This is a relatively complicated system - you know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. I've done my best to try and distill the essence of a 25 page design document down into something more easily digestible, so these are just the broad strokes of the plan we're currently mulling over. Resources are reduced to a single currency and acquisition timers are removed. Inventory for infantry items is removed - changed to pay on use Individual Bases/Facilities supply Resources for local players Bases/Facilities have a power level that is drained by providing resources to local players There is a passive power regen to offset the cost of small skirmishes and to restore full power when no combat is taking place. Full powered bases provide more resources than low powered ones The more players being given resources, the faster the power drain Addition of Auraxium Crystals/Mines as a power source These are resource nodes added in between facilities Vehicles fitted with appropriate equipment can load up auraxium at these nodes This auraxium can be transported to a base to manually refill it’s power reserves When a base is totally out of power, no resources are provided to the friendly troops in the area. This allows the attacker cut off entrenched defenders from using resources if they can keep supply vehicles from breaking their blockade There's still a lot of other little nuances and details but I think that gives a decent overall picture. It's a pretty significant departure from the current system - do you think this plan would make resources a more interesting component of the game? Does it go too far? Let us know.[/quote] NTU-style resource system. All of my yes.

Goddamn it I was just about to post this I'm super excited. This is bascially similar to the idea I previously threw out of bases having resources instead of players (so if you pull a tank from a facility, you would take 400 resources out of 5000 or so from that facility) except with the twist of making it so you still have personal resources, but now the base supplies your recharge instead of the whole cont, and there are minerals to gather which means logistics are important to keeping the bases topped off when under heavy use. Which is way better in a way because you still have your personal pool preventing easy abuse by groups of griefers That said I'd like it so territory would still have some kind of effect. I.e. the farther from your warpgate the less recharge your bases have, and the less resources? Or maybe just make it so facilities have better benefits (that maybe stack if you have two facilities of the same type?). I'd just hate to see the territory thing just become a matter of "winning" instead of a matter of capturing territory being good for a certain strategic benefit.

bring back the ant! sounds cool, but "acquisition timers are removed" scares me

so what i can gather from that post, it's an interesting idea that works way way better in organized play. like, this is perfect for an esports environment but team-based resource management in a game where there are still plenty of solo players feels super risky the idea of not being able to spawn a tank because the zerg has already blown through and taken all the resources doesn't really sit all that well to me. especially if it gets low enough that you can't even spawn a flash to move from base to base costs and specifics are still up in the air of course so i'm not going to condemn it right away, but at first glance i'm on the fence

Does this mean the warpgate will let you pull vehicles infinitely?

[QUOTE=mooman1080;41526526]Does this mean the warpgate will let you pull vehicles infinitely?[/QUOTE] No because you'd still need to wait around for your resources to fill back up.

Contenent Lock plans revealed as well: [url]https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/november-continent-locking.82996/[/url] [img]http://www.soe.com/images/community/features/continental-lattice-concept.jpg[/img] [quote]Continent Locking (or the "Continental Lattice" in the post-lattice era) is on the horizon and will hopefully enhance the feel and depth of PlanetSide 2's overall metagame significantly. Here's what the basic plan looks like so far: Each of our current continents (Indar, Esamir, Amerish) becomes a home continent for an Empire Each empire has a single “Home Warpgate” on their home continent that can never be taken from them All other warpgates can now change hands like regular territory (details here still being worked out, so let us know if you have ideas) By taking control of a warpgate, your empire can now advance along any continental lattice connected to it Hossin is given three warpgates, one connected to Indar, one to Esamir, and one to Amerish. There is no home warpgate on Hossin. Battle Islands fall between continents on all the links not leading to Hossin[/quote]

It's a good thing that I get those cert points for logging in every day because I would never get any otherwise. On another note, anyone have any recommendations for TR medic guns? I've been using the starting blaster since the other ones available seem to be exactly the same.

The starting medic gun is pretty good. Unless you're dying for close or long range combat exclusively, I'd stick with the default. You may want to trail the higher rate of fire ones, which sacrifice a bit of stability at range for higher ROF (which offsets your inaccuracy by fielding more bullets). You may consider getting another pistol instead since you can use it on each class, if you don't like the feel of the pistol.

It took them a while to realise that PlanetSide 1 was a very good thing to implement designs from - intro you know? Planetside 2. [QUOTE=ramirez!;41526761]It's a good thing that I get those cert points for logging in every day because I would never get any otherwise. On another note, anyone have any recommendations for TR medic guns? I've been using the starting blaster since the other ones available seem to be exactly the same.[/QUOTE] Depends. If you want close-to-medium, use TAR. You'll shred the fuckers who come close - you can even shred shotty gunners if you're quick. It's also fairly decent at medium ranges if you can control recoil. Slap some low-power scope on it, and laser sight - the gun's great at hipfiring. Worse than carbines, obviously, but that's an assault rifle. Long ranges - nothing beats the SABR. Literally, nothing. Slap your favorite scope on it though, its ironsight is useless. And also, you die in CQ, a lot. So familiarise yourslef to handugns. For a very long time I used Cycler TRV, began to think of it as an upgraded version of default one. It looks very heavy and badass, shoots fast, fairly accurate (for a TR assault rifle, that is), best used in medium encounters.

[QUOTE=KorJax;41526569][img]http://www.soe.com/images/community/features/continental-lattice-concept.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Wait... This is a little messed up. Both southern warpgates on Indar lead to the same warpgate on Hossin. What happens if say NC owns the SE warpgate while VS owns the SW? Who then owns the one on Hossin? What happens when all 3 of those warpgates are owned by different empires? Who owns the link? I don't really know how warpgates worked on PS1, but I do know they were all neutral and not capturable like they're aiming for here. I'm confused.

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;41527659]Wait... This is a little messed up. Both southern warpgates on Indar lead to the same warpgate on Hossin. What happens if say NC owns the SE warpgate while VS owns the SW? Who then owns the one on Hossin? What happens when all 3 of those warpgates are owned by different empires? Who owns the link? I don't really know how warpgates worked on PS1, but I do know they were all neutral and not capturable like they're aiming for here. I'm confused.[/QUOTE] Probably you can use the warpgate if your faction owns it, but the question is more about if you want to or dare to, since you'd be warping into the warpgate of another faction, presumably with players. I can see this leading to some retarded stalemates though.

Both factions would just end up surrounding their gate and shelling anyone who comes through, probably before they've even loaded in fully.

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;41528143]Both factions would just end up surrounding their gate and shelling anyone who comes through, probably before they've even loaded in fully.[/QUOTE] How about adding some kind of benefit to owning or fighting on the Battle Islands. Would give incentive to actually warp through and do business there, not just camp.

The resource changes are really exciting. I'd imagine you would either do a fast resupply using harassers, which obviously doesn't get as much energy as sunderers would do at the tradeoff of a higher speed. [editline]20th July 2013[/editline] I'm not sure if they should make it an utility on the vehicles or just make a seperate vehicle later on. I also wonder if the energy storage thing is going to cost(a pretty large amount of) certs, because if it does it'll probably make people not do it at all.

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;41527659]Wait... This is a little messed up. Both southern warpgates on Indar lead to the same warpgate on Hossin. What happens if say NC owns the SE warpgate while VS owns the SW? Who then owns the one on Hossin? What happens when all 3 of those warpgates are owned by different empires? Who owns the link? I don't really know how warpgates worked on PS1, but I do know they were all neutral and not capturable like they're aiming for here. I'm confused.[/QUOTE] That's not how it'll work. It's just a drawing to demonstrate roughly how a continental lattice would be with Hossin. Each warpgate would obviously be owned by only one faction at a time, and getting a warpgate would give you ownership of both sides of it. Or they could ditch capturable warpgates and have them be always neutral and facilities near them only capturable if you have territories near the "past" warpgate. This could easily go either way.

[QUOTE=kukiric;41528256]That's not how it'll work. It's just a drawing to demonstrate roughly how a continental lattice would be with Hossin. Each warpgate would obviously be owned by only one faction at a time, and getting a warpgate would give you ownership of both sides of it.[/QUOTE] If you control any warp gate A on that, then you also control B that's connected to it? What about C that's connected to B. And D and E

My assumption is that you need control of both of the neutral warpgates of that continent to reach hossin, ergo if it's your home continent you need it locked.

I'm just interpreting as all the possible links But really in final it'll me more like "northern indar warpgate goes straight to hossin" type deal [editline]20th July 2013[/editline] Clarification: [url]http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?postid=937331[/url] [url]http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?postid=937345[/url] [quote]Few clarifications to some questions here and on other feedback channels: There are two resources: Facility resource (power), and Personal Resource (nanites). Personal resource income is affected by power level. So a facility at 50% power will have half the resource income to players being supplied by that facility. Power is drained based on players being supplied, not their actions. So one player pulling a vehicle is not going to be harmful. The more players being supplied the more power is drained (it's a stepwise function, not linear). Idea is that small groups will have little or no effect on power drain but it is a much more significant factor in larger battles. The 'steps' closely map to the activity levels - squad, 2 squads, platoon, 2 platoons, etc. Warpgates provide a small amount of power inflow to connected facilities. This is enough to offset any drain for small groups, and empty facilities will slowly recharge over time on their own (so no running around fueling up bases). Severing lattice where possible can be very impactful to the facilities that are cut off. How players spend their resulting resources does not affect other players. That part of the system works the same as it does today - players have resources and they spend them on vehicles and consumables. Instead of having 3 separate resources there will be one resource. Roughly speaking you should be able to go from empty to full resources in about 10 minutes in ideal conditions. That may change but that's the ballpark. The goal is that if you want to do one thing like drive tanks or fly aircraft, you can do that if you save your resources for those things. We also don't want to have too much save-up power so you are affected when resource income is reduced. Deep pockets insulates that so we don't want pockets to be too deep. Acquisition timer certs will likely be refunded. This seems like the most fair way to handle it. The power-fetching aspect is intended to be focused around large battles to spread them out. Power-carrying vehicles would show up on the continent map so they would be mobile objectives, primarily for vehicle combat. This isn't intended to be a boring tedious thing so much as a sort of capture-the-flag style gameplay where the power carrier is highly likely to see action. Warpgates are facilities that do not suffer power drain, so they are always available as a recharge point. Of course everything above is subject to change, and that's one reason we want your feedback! [/quote] [quote]1. The idea of PS1-style neutrality is a possibility, but it isn't essential for the core mechanics. The running thought on this is that we want to see how a pure-resource loss system works. If we are successful in making resources matter then the 100% loss of them should be crippling enough. Neutrality offers other tradeoffs though. It does make for a more extreme consequence and can up the stakes. 2. Yes, inventory refers to the stockpile of infantry consumables which completely insulates players from shortages. The goal is that resources are generally constant and predictable, but they are subject to local acute shortages that are impactful. Inventory hurts that and is also tedious and unnecessary. Removal of it opens more skill of resource management for veterans while making it easier for new players to explore the game and be more spendy (they start with only grenades and vehicles to spend resources on, so they can afford to try out vehicles more...lot better than current 20 minute cooldowns). 3. Mechanic is very ant-like: Deploy, charge up, transport, deploy to dispense. And yes, ground vehicles. Air vehicles would circumvent the geography and detract from the desired gameplay. 4. The resource nodes will be placed, not random. Think of them like charging stations. Drive up, deploy, charge up, leave. Some will charge faster than others as part of a risk/reward tradefoff. They'll be placed in remote parts of the continents to get more interesting gameplay in the more unused areas and make geography more of a factor. The number and placement is TBD, but that's the goal. Oh and every warpgate would have one nearby so you always have a power source even if backed up. 5. I had envisioned AMP stations having a power-related role but that moved to the Warpgate. AMP stations have another important benefit planned.[/quote]

Is there a way to enable the realtime priority for PS2 in the windows task manager? I want to see what happens to my computer when I put it on that. [editline]20th July 2013[/editline] probably a not but who knows.

Is it just me or are the VS completely over-powered? Every time I've played ps2 for the last three weeks, if the VS even try at all to push us back (I'm NC) then they completely obliterate us, by number's, vehicles, max suits, air offense, tactics (usually just zerg rush), everything. Is this occurring on all the servers or just mine? (I'm Matherson) Sometimes I just don't even want to try taking an Amp station or a Tech Plant due to the absolute obliteration that ensues, even if we get into the last minute or two of taking the facility, they end up flipping the point and there's nothing we can do. It's like, we're either ghost-caping, or we're loosing a fight against the Vanu. Every time. Maybe it's just gotten worse since they've added Alerts, cause the Vanu just zerg that shit. And the NC and TR don't seem to do much about it, or (possibly) can't do anything about it. I don't know, this is just how I feel. I'd love to hear that the Vanu have no more advantages to winning in the game than the other two factions, but it's honestly getting to a point where I feel like that cannot be true.

It's not that VS is overpowered, but VS on Mattherson in particular do have a major population advantage.

major population advantage is an understatement :v:

insert generic post about how the empire i play isn't op but all the other empires are throw in some unreliable anecdotal experiences you had one night and you got a pretty standard official forum

I'm sure the VS in general are not more powerful than the other factions, but on Matherson... ho ho ho... sometimes it's just impossible. They're numbers are off the charts. Every other guy I fight will be a max suit with zoe. and there will literally be 3 or 4 of them to one of my platoon mates. Maybe they're just more organized... [editline]21st July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;41540475]insert generic post about how the empire i play isn't op but all the other empires are throw in some unreliable anecdotal experiences you had one night and you got a pretty standard official forum[/QUOTE] Not one night... every day for the last few weeks at least.