Base "Alert Levels"

[Reni]

This is an idea in response to "The anatomy of a Planetside 2 battle in 2,000 words" -http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/02/23/planetside-2-war-story/

Matt Higby - "For a while, in a lot of our design, we made a mistake, in that we had a whole bunch of game systems that players were having to compete against to be able to win. We had all kinds of shields, auto-turrets, things that, when I was attacking a base, yes, they would slow me down and make it so I couldn’t capture the base right away. But that wasn’t me competing with other players, which is where the fun of the game is. It was me competing with mechanics."


The problem I had with this article is simply that we are looking at minimal interaction with terrain. From what I gathered, it sounds like they are going back to how Planetside was originally modeled.

Don't get me wrong, it worked GREAT, but what will be new? If there isn't some subsistence then it could very well be just a remodeled Planetside.

One of my ideas involves having more player controlled elements within each base/facility that your empire controls.


Alert Levels

Alert Levels are a very basic gameplay function, that can be controlled by the assigned base commander or individuals with an equivelant CR5 background. (I say this because we know Command Rank is no exsistant in PS2)

Can be controlled in the facility/base's control center or via a remote HUD link to the commanders.

Green – Shields are at minimal power and doors secured with minor defenses (shorter hack times). Base benefits are MAX for the faction controlling. I.E. – Advance Tech Base, all tech is available throughout the continent and at no spawning of equipment/perks cooldown time.

Yellow – Shields are up to 50%, doors secured with moderate defenses (moderate hack times). Base benefits take longer to issue and cooldown timer is implemented for a short time.

Red – Shields Max, Auto Defenses are brought online. Rooms are locked down with hard encryption for hacks. Base benefits to other areas take a decent time.


Again, this is a very basic idea that theoretically could be implemented easily into game.

Matt said the crew originally had vast ideas and controls in place, but what turned them off to them was the fact that it felt like you were playing against the game instead of actually players.

If these types of ideas could be implemented to a user controlled system and tweaked with balancing, it could really make for an interesting field of battle.

Please reply with constructive comments, thoughts, and opinions. :)

-Reni

[RedKnights]

I do like the idea of having the different alert levels not only be a visual and tactical feedback on an assault, but also affecting a base and it's defenses as a game mechanic.

Your model appeals to me because the base only initiates those mechanic when there must already be a large PvP battle in the area, and so these defenses support the defenders, rather than being the sole antagonist in the attackers experience.

Not only that the defenses could possibly be player controlled from some kind of base "Security Room" with a bunch of turrets, cameras and the like. Allowing engineers to control, and upgrade defenses.

I like where the idea is going. :D

[Garem]

I'd love to see more Strategic aspects in the game. This one is mildly interesting... maybe tie in the use of resources? Paying resources to elevate base defenses or something.

[Warborn]

I don't like the idea of it being dependent on a single person deciding which alert level to be at. I wonder about outfits being able to collect a percentage of resources their members earn and using those resources to upgrade bases or something, though. Would that be a worthwhile feature? I'm not sure.

Further, even if the defenders have to sacrifice base functionality to get the shields and turrets and stuff up, does that in itself justify those systems being active? Higby's concern seems to be that, in general, forcing players to struggle against AI controlled systems independent of player control was not in the spirit of the game. I have to wonder whether even doing it this way wouldn't still be contrary to what they're going for, as it nonetheless does still have players competing against auto-turrets and the like.

[Reni]

Further, even if the defenders have to sacrifice base functionality to get the shields and turrets and stuff up, does that in itself justify those systems being active? Higby's concern seems to be that, in general, forcing players to struggle against AI controlled systems independent of player control was not in the spirit of the game. I have to wonder whether even doing it this way wouldn't still be contrary to what they're going for, as it nonetheless does still have players competing against auto-turrets and the like.

It could more or less be similar to how PS1 handled it. It was far superior to have a player in the turret than have the auto-defense system active. Same with shields, it could be an automated response but if shielding was more in-depth, say where engineers could re-route power to keep the shields up by taking away power from other systems. This could simply be more or less a quick but temporary response to an attack, you would still need to manpower to maintain or actually operate it effectively.