No announcement yet.

An idea I've been thinking about...

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An idea I've been thinking about...

    I've been musing about the overall battle flow and capture mechanics in Planetside for a little bit, now, and I had an idea I wanted to run past you guys here before I put the time in to make a post on reddit or the official forums.

    The idea is essentially this: Sunderers deployed along a lattice line "lock" that line and prevent capture of the base behind it.

    I'm trying to address a few issues with this:
    • Reframe a battle as a moving front and not just a fight over a specific base by changing the focus to the lattice link (the edges of the graph instead of the nodes)
    • Make battles more stable, so that win or loss conditions shift the fight forwards or backwards instead of dissipating entirely
    • Make midfield combined arms battles more common through midfield objectives and greater availability of fallback sunderers
    • Give vehicle players something to do when the fight moves inside and encouraging combined arms work at all stages
    • Provide a mechanic for laying siege to difficult bases like Bio Labs
    • Shift battlefield objectives from designer-fiat ones like control points to player driven ones

    The system would follow these rules:
    • Specific hexes between bases would be set as "lattice line" hexes.
    • Deploying a Sunderer within one of these hexes "locks" a lattice line if you own a base on either side of the lattice line.
    • If the lane has been locked, the enemy cannot advance the capture timer of your base along that lane.
    • A base's control points can still be flipped even when the lattice line is locked, which locks the lane until those points have been recaptured. If the capture timer on the other base has begun the control points behave like now and cannot be flipped. This is primarily to allow spec-ops/back-capping strategies to disrupt an attack.
    • If both sides have Sunderers in these hexes, the lane is mutually locked, and neither side can advance a timer.
    • If you have a lock on the lane with a Sunderer inside enemy territory, and the enemy has no counter-lock, the base is now considered "under siege"
    • A base under siege cannot recover lost ground on its capture timer until siege status is removed by counter-locking or destroying the enemy Sunderers on the lattice line, allowing attackers to wear the base down with attrition and short term point captures and keeping the lock relevant even once capture has begun. If you wanted to emphasize the effect even further, very slowly start capturing the base even WITHOUT points being held!
    • Reinforcements needed spawns now will prefer the forward most Sunderer on a lattice line, and will work on offense as well. This is to provide a mechanism to feed midfield fights and to actually put people where the combat is instead of the base behind it.

    My thinking is that this would open up a lot of interesting strategic choices that involve the terrain between bases. A sunderer placed in the midfield could prevent a capture until it was destroyed. A Sunderer placed to siege demands a response from defenders, either by seeking it out and destroying it or by deploying a Sunderer of their own and attempting to move the fight outdoors. Conversely, an attacker now has a strong incentive to try and lock the lane down to prevent an annoying back-cap, and must commit resources to keeping control of the outside of the base as well as the inside to keep their Sunderers secure. This is a perfect job for armour or air outside the base that would otherwise be dead weight. This wouldn't be a babysitting job, either... between preventing the enemy from setting up their own Sunderer to lock the lattice line in defense, and preventing the enemy from destroying Sunderers with tanks and infantry, an armour squad outside a Bio Lab might have its hands full! Because the hexes in which you can actually lock the lattice line are limited, it would hopefully prevent Sunderer-hide-and-seek while still providing enough flexibility for players to deploy in many different areas.

    An interesting and (in my mind) very positive side effect of this would be the presence of Sunderers in the midfield, and a strong incentive to keep bringing Sunderers into midfield positions. Good midfield battles usually only form when an attacking force of critical mass is pushed out of a base and has somewhere nearby to fall back to (otherwise they scatter and redeploy elsewhere). Having players naturally place those fallback points would encourage the formation of that kind of battle which, IMO, tend to be the most interesting battles in the game as EVERYTHING is player driven and the most interesting and dynamic fights happen.

    What do you guys think? Are there flaws in my reasoning? Are there edge cases I haven't accounted for? What are some objections you might have?

  • #2
    Re: An idea I've been thinking about...

    This is awesome!

    It might have a different answer from developpers, though, given their actual behaviour on the game. (As I see it, in regard to infantry, they favor ignorants and disorganised zerg gameplay through funneling in order/(resulting in) to deny small and organised groups the impact they would have.)

    As I see it, what you suggest addresses a graceful mathematical solution to balance developpers' mechanics.

    As an edge case exploration: Give one a squadful of stealth-sunderer drivers in that scenario, he would be able to slow tremendously an even many times more numerous, though disorganised opponent.

    A bliss! I hope this idea can find its way to the game.


    • #3
      Re: An idea I've been thinking about...

      My thinking with regards to "what if they just spam Sunderers?" is that the number of locations that would actually be usable for the task would be relatively limited, giving you a clear set of areas to search and/or defend to prevent such a tactic. Under those parameters a seek and destroy operation probably isn't too much of a burden, even for an unorganized force, though it might trip up a force going straight for the objective and ignoring the exterior. It might become more disruptive in longer lanes like some of the ones on Amerish or Esamir.


      • #4
        Re: An idea I've been thinking about...

        Hrmm, interesting idea starstriker1. Right now the game is all about spawn logistics. This would add something else to the game.


        • #5
          Re: An idea I've been thinking about...

          Interestingly enough, it's still about spawn logistics in a way! It's a new way of dealing with them, though, tying the spawn logistics right into the capture system.


          • #6
            Re: An idea I've been thinking about...

            Something that's occurred to me thinking about this more is that it scales really poorly in smaller fights. In a 48v48 fight, sending a few guys to hunt down Sunderers within a few well defined areas is trivial, and an undefended Sunderer will be shredded in a minute or two at worst. In a 6v6 fight, though, those Sunderers become a massive burden on the side that needs to knock them down. Even an undefended Sunderer can be a pain to knock down with a deployment shield (which was, after all, intended to prevent solo players from killing them) meaning a single player can almost completely break the assault by deploying a single Sunderer in the midfield and it'll be a huge pain to be rid of it. The less people there are in the fight, the less capable they would be of coping with a locked lattice lane.

            My first thought for addressing it would be to shift the lock to a "soft lock" where it drastically increases the time required on a capture attempt on the locked lane (for arguments sake, by 300%). Your small squad could then dig in on the capture point and hold on even if someone set up a Sunderer to lock the lane further down the road, and it'd only buy them time instead of essentially making the capture impossible. You'd just need to hold the point for 12 minutes instead of 4... still not ideal, but better than needing to go on a wild goose chase hunting Sunderers when you don't have the manpower to spare. This kind of soft lock would still be a big incentive to control the exterior in most lanes, as tripling the capture timer gives plenty of time to muster a defense, but potentially encourages long grinds or ghost caps, and doesn't have the same strategic "oomph" that locking the lane outright gives (a force could still just bypass you and camp the point instead of destroying your blocking force).


            • #7
              Re: An idea I've been thinking about...

              I really love the idea. I have looked it over several times and still cant think of anything that I would change. I really think that it would really help the flow of the game and would make outdoor/in-between base fights way more common. It would also give Armor and incentive to push lattice lanes that they normally wouldn't. Because Armor would be needed more, I think that you would see more small groups our size driving around. As it is, enemy Armor is ether in a Zerg or in ones and two's. Yes you would see more Large Platoons of Armor being pulled. But it is much harder for a Zerg Platoon to fight "effectively" over a couple of different lattice lane than say a couple of Armor squads. Over all I really like the idea and I think that it would make Galaxy Troop Bombing way less effective. Would love to see this make its way into the game. Keep up the good ideas Starstiker1.

              P.S. I cant figure out how to Mention someone, unless I copy someones else's post were they Mentioned the person. So if anyone knows how, send me a message.
              "When attacking a stronger opponent, Attack swiftly and with full force at their weakest point— take them out before the can react, or Fall back and engage in guerrilla actions,” Spartan 117.


              • #8
                Re: An idea I've been thinking about...


                If you use @ before their forumname it should create the following code

                [ MENTION=91703]MatthewDaManiac [/ MENTION]
                NOTE: I added a spaces before both MENTIONs' to see the code

                (6..~)Z Z z z....


                • #9
                  Re: An idea I've been thinking about...

                  [MENTION=91703]MatthewDaManiac[/MENTION] tada!
                  MacKahan -- Mac-Kay-an In case you were curious. ;-)



                  • #10
                    Re: An idea I've been thinking about...

                    Sounds very interesting! Great thinking friend! make sure to post them to sony aswell
                    Pull up the bulls for Iron Maiden! Rock 'n Roll for AC/DC Ride your motor for Motorhead! Fight War for Tactical Gamers!




                    TeamSpeak 3 Server


                    Twitter Feed