Goal: Creatiing and Sustaining Epic Battles

Manitou · 2011-01-18, 09:47 AM

One of the redeeming qualities of PlanetSide in the earlier days was the ability for the creation of conditions for the epic battle to form. The challenge to sustain these conditions, while occasionally partially met by the stubborn defiance of specific outfits, should be in my opinion, one of the goals of this game. I think a very close examination of this desirable situation should be high on the list of things towards which to work.

What caused these conditions to form? A few that I noticed were anywhere there was a choke-point that led to a critical juncture point in a wider battle. Bridges, valleys, and other natural features provided conditions that would wind up causing an epic battle. Critical towers with their crucial spawn points would sometimes lend to this scenario.

Also, I would be remiss if we didn't take into account the ability of small squads with great leadership, skilled troops, and a willingness to fight against a larger foe ("Their arrows block out the sun!" reply: "Then we shall fight them in the shade."). If these small squads stubbornly refused to give up and were skilled, they could begin to create the conditions needed for an epic battle.

These are not exhaustive as I am certain many of you have experienced different factors leading up to and contributing to the epic battle.

I am hoping that the developers are examining the factors that resulted in the formation of these conditions. I think we would all agree they were what fueled many of us to stay with the game.

Firefly · 2011-01-18, 01:32 PM

I stayed as long as I did because of two factors: 1) my outfit, and 2) the massive battles to be had. Since Planetside, I have not enjoyed an FPS with anything more than a passing fancy at its graphics. I'm sorry, but unless you have ever played Planetside during its glory years then you don't know what you're missing.

Sixteen-man server? Fuggoff.
Thirty-two-man server? Die in a fire.
Sixty-four-man server? I laugh at the underwhelming underachievement of it all.

Manitou · 2011-01-18, 02:20 PM

Agreed, Firefly. Your Outfit (Black Widow Company) and the Dragon Wolves were arguably two of the few who were able to contribute to the conditions leading up to the epic battle in the early years of the game.

That is why I am hoping that the developers do indeed spend some time examining this dynamic in the progress of the game.

Hamma · 2011-01-18, 02:30 PM

Agreed!

I think it is one of the single most important things they should be focusing on. Those epic battles over bridges, stretches of land, towers etc are what made the game for me.

LesserShade · 2011-01-20, 12:10 PM

I may be in the minority here, but I always felt that the game lost something during beta when the lattice system was introduced, which heavily encouraged the massive battles.

I enjoyed to some extent the whack-a-mole style of game that we were playing before the lattice. You could run off with a group of people and make serious headway in capping bases, sometimes you ended up in tense group vs group fights not much unlike playing a traditional FPS, but in PS, you never knew if that base two groups were fighting over was going to be the flashpoint for a 200 person love fest, or at the very least.

Solo hacking bases was bunk and it definitely needed addressing, but I think the lattice system that developed pushed the game too heavily into a zerg on zerg type of fight 100% of the time, where as before the lattice, huge fights happened, but you had the option of engaging in smaller more tactical fights where group leadership and teamwork were more apparent.

I'm definitely not advocating for less epic battles though, that is one video game experience that PS delivered that no other game ever replicated. I just like to hope that in the sequel, there is an easier way to bust the lattice or something to give people the option of jumping between large and small fights.

Sifer2 · 2011-01-20, 09:51 PM

Regarding your first comment about choke points I thought this might be another good time to mention the idea I had in another thread.

That is something like limiting aerial movement combined with mountains an other terrain to create front lines. I suggest something like anti air missile facilities that can be controlled an create no fly zones for your enemy. That can be hacked an taken out to open up aerial routes. Though to control them you might need to also own the nearby base.

But the basic idea is that it would cut down on the ability to just fly right over the enemy an paradrop into a base. You would instead have to fight your way on the ground first making terrain more of a factor. I think this combined with the right terrain design would create those large battles. An also spread fighting out instead of it always being centered around a base.

Furret · 2011-01-20, 11:08 PM

I think everyone enjoyed the bridge/tower fights a lot more than i did. I always thought they were a bit silly, just a tank spam war, but that was my juvenile opinion. The reason i loved the game (and one of my most vivid memories) was on Amerish (I think), and we were pushing back the NC from one base to the next. We really needed the next base because it was a tech plant, so pretty much everyone in the TR and NC were between those two bases running around killing stuff. The coolest part of all of that, for me, was the open environment, the huge field, surrounded by trees that made for the most interesting combats I've ever seen. If you went into the field, you were likely to be reaver spammed, or you'd run into the BFR line. If you went through the forest, you'd run into AV MAX's and other people running around with the Anti-Vehicle guns. Pretty much, no matter where you went, you were screwed, but it was so much fun listening to my driver say "shit! *turns away* shit! *turns a different way* HOLY SHIT THERE'S SO MANY" while myself and my friends were laughing our asses off shelling away at everyone around us. Probably the most intense fight i've ever been in, it lasted all day and into the next morning. I don't even remember if we took the plant, but it was fun as hell trying to take it.

Sorry for the text block, I couldn't think of a good way to break it up.

MgFalcon · 2011-01-21, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sifer2

That is something like limiting aerial movement combined with mountains an other terrain to create front lines. I suggest something like anti air missile facilities that can be controlled an create no fly zones for your enemy. That can be hacked an taken out to open up aerial routes. Though to control them you might need to also own the nearby base.

But the basic idea is that it would cut down on the ability to just fly right over the enemy an paradrop into a base. You would instead have to fight your way on the ground first making terrain more of a factor. I think this combined with the right terrain design would create those large battles. An also spread fighting out instead of it always being centered around a base.

Although I like your first idea on how to tactically maneuver opposing aerial-ships, I must disagree with your second statement (not the terrain part, that always causes good conflicts).

Back in the day, when I was running with Band of Bros we would get literally 1-2 platoons together and blow the gen of a connecting base (usually not the same continent that the fight was on), greatly reducing the effectiveness of that empires' campaign. As I recall I remember holding a gen room for about an hour until this one group of TR's glitched in and bombed us all, but still giving the rest of the VS zerg enough time to push the TR off the other continent. Soon thereafter the VS zerg was upon the continent that we had dropped the base on, and continued to have one of the longest base fights in my whole PS career.

Having this no-fly zone would just interrupt gameplay and eliminate tactical advantages as I mentioned. I would however agree to have good anti-air guns on bases, none of the pussy rotary gun stuff, but keeping them to a minimum (i.e. two per base).

Duffman · 2011-01-22, 12:35 AM

I like the idea of no fly zones. Creating corridors of fighting that will force battles outside of bases. Don't think it will destroy flying just you have to fly over or near a battle area instead of completely around it.

TheRagingGerbil · 2011-01-23, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Sifer2

...an create no fly zones for your enemy. That can be hacked an taken out to open up aerial routes. Though to control them you might need to also own the nearby base.

But the basic idea is that it would cut down on the ability to just fly right over the enemy an paradrop into a base. You would instead have to fight your way on the ground first making terrain more of a factor. I think this combined with the right terrain design would create those large battles. An also spread fighting out instead of it always being centered around a base.

Not a bad idea. I always felt that the automatic turrets on friendly bases and towers should have more punch.

I would like to see weather play a greater role in this approach. Imagine being ground due to snow, high winds, dust, etc. This could also work the other way as well. Say the automated defense are down due to lightning...

These little touches add to the immersion as well as the tactical side.

DirtyBird · 2011-01-27, 08:13 PM

Large scale bridge/tower/base battles is what kept the attention of most in our outfit.
Also the fact a smaller group could take seemingly insignificant towers, hold them and then create the beginnings of those large scale battles.
More of the opposing empire try to remove you from it and more of your own empire moved in to support you.
This would branch out to other towers and a nearby base.

...then the third empire would try to get in on the action

The expansion, Core Combat, splitting the fighting to above and below the ground killed it for us and it never recovered.
There never seemed to be the numbers to recreate those large battles experienced in the early periods of release.

I sincerely hope they can reach that goal of creating and sustaining epic battles.
A lot of it is going to depend on population. If you have the numbers there will always be epic battles, thats what the game was about.

Grimster · 2011-01-28, 02:00 AM

Ahhh I remember those epic bridge battles. I have fond memories of the bridge between Acan and Voltan on Hossin. Nothing beats that ..... expect for maybe a hotdrop with your outfit over an enemy base in a epic base battle.

The adrenaline running through your veins when you stand in a tower loaded up in your MAX suit waiting for the enemy to come charging through the door.

The satisfaction when you manage to break a base defense and capture the base after a 2 hour long battle.

The enjoyment of seeing a fully loaded Galaxy being blown to bits by your AA missile.

The relief when you manage to backstab the infiltrator who is hacking your factions only tower at a enemy base.

Oh hell I could go on forever. I hope dearly that SOE scores on this sequel.

If they only manage to provide me with even half the enjoyment and fun I had in Planetside I will be more than satisfied.

Tikuto · 2011-01-28, 07:19 AM

:: Medics. Their role could be greatly refined for just to sustain battles.
Medics could give the 'downed' player a disposable item for them to use on themselves instead of having the Medic poke an item in you waiting to be shot. This disposable item gives the 'downed' player their own timing and instancey of revival with a hazey adrenaline-like visual effect.

The ammunition charges for this disposal item is used it three ways:

It is administered on 'live' players. (Medic runs around poking people)
It is dispensed to 'downed' players. (Medic runs around throwing injectors to people)
It is administered to self. (Medic gratifies herself with her Medic-pokes)

Some vehicles or weapons may completely obliterate players denying any revival.

:: Support role occulsion. This allows vehicle drivers to know who can repair!
Each player has a decided role: the tank Driver and field Engineer. In battle, a vehicle driver will need repairs. They will run away to safey, get out and repair. The field Engineer(s) could be settled somewhere nearby waiting under their own Cloak-Field Generator for the Driver(s) to come and repair, and the occulsion effect will stop Drivers from running over Engineers in the Cloak-Field.

:: [link] Use of creating relocational bases unlike fixated facilities and towers - Automated Robotic Constructs
(small and big). Small ARCs are redployable; Big ARCs are not redeployable.

Small ARCs would have significant size (big).
Big ARCs would be tremendous size (biggers!) with self-defence capabilities.

The ARC allows additional structures in the field, like PlanetSide1 towers and a possible replacement for them, where players can compete in different places other than at fixated facilties.

These would greatly sustain a field battle.

Hamma · 2011-01-28, 09:53 AM

Interesting thoughts!

One thing I think is key is that the Developers make the world more "Modular" in that they are able to modify base structures, tower locations etc to make things even better once folks start playing the game. This was a cardinal mistake with PlanetSide as we know it now they made the world to static and the devs would need to do an entire rewrite of the map to add things like new bases, etc.

Traak · 2011-01-28, 04:45 PM

Having played on suckodelic computers the entire time on Planetside, I can say that being able to upgrade the base and do more support work is a very welcome idea. Suddenly all the high scorers=cheaters/exploiters weren't so high and mighty in the face of Shadow turrets and my favorite, the AA turret upgrade to base walls and towers. Made the game more inclusive when you didn't have to have a very very fast computer and low ping times along with all the cheats and exploits the high scorers use.

Playing the game "clean" as in no cheats, no exploits, no hacks, nothing, for all these years, it got very wearying being owned by cheaters in the later stages, or by people utilizing the idiot unrealistic physics in the early stages. Having upgradeable stuff and lots of CE makes it so all your cheats and exploits don't really affect me. Go ahead, prance back and forth in front of my Shadow turret. See if that makes it miss. Even that 10,000hp armor you have on your Reaver disappears pretty fast in the face of the wall AA turret, doesn't it?

Upgradeable bases and advanced CE makes the game more fun for those who have not been near fast internet or had lousy computers while limiting the power of the cheaters.

Adding Server Side Hit Detection would greatly simplify putting anti-cheat technology in.

Having the game able to go over your game files and memory registers on the fly while you play would be a huge bonus, too. Or making the stuff so that it was all compiled and un-findable.