• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Planetside 2..Free to play..and looking awesome so far!

Page 60 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Revolution 11 said:
But you don't have to increase the map size to do hubs. Compress the base density on certain portions of the map, remove bases in other parts, and spread out the rest. You will get hubs just by spacing this way. But if you don't prune some of the existing links, you still won't get field battles. Armies will race for the nearest entry base to the hub and then fight within the hub itself.

Increasing the map size brings other problems. When you are not in a fight, the travel time on foot and vehicle is already very long. You would now spend double or more the time in walking, driving, etc. and then still spend 5 minutes capping a base with only 5 defenders. The tedium and time waste would increase absolutely but the chance of field battles would not increase that much.

The hub system would prevent this because you only travel between hubs when that hub link is opened by majority control of the hub. Either way, you spend most of your time within a hub, close intense Stalingrad-type infantry combat or between hubs in massive sweeping Kursk tank-battle maneuvers. There will always be a lot of interest in controlling a hub either to attack a different hub or to defend this hub. Travel time without combat is minimized. Combat time is maximized.
Click to expand...

On map size, sure, the time between bases would be doubled or so, but unless you get intercepted in transit, you'd get your sunderers set up and the battle begins. And if you do get intercepted midway, then the battle has already begun, so it wouldn't be that bad.

Also, I've always wanted there to be some kind of deployable forward bases that can actually spawn light tanks...imagine if there were 4 km between bases but you can park 5 sunderers together and when linked they have a dome shield and can spawn lightnings and below-grade vehicles.


To an extent though you could accomplish something similar by just removing some bases rather than increasing continent size.

Now, I'm not exactly sure on the precise details of your hub idea, but knowing SOE, whatever you have in mind they would make it just like outposts are now, shielded spawn rooms that get surrounded by zergs just like they do now. You might have some specifics in mind that would help but SOE just won't let go of certain design decisions.

Revolution 11 said:
I think the Skyguard, a otherwise good counter in theory, is too weak in its role. Its shots should only burst if they are going to miss the target, and do extra damage if the shots directly hit. I don't know how the current shots work but they seem to burst in all cases.

Buff the Skyguard in direct damage, reduce splash damage or increase ESF armor against Skyguard, and you reduce the Lib's supposed dominance, though as I said before, air is pretty much useless anyway. Fixing air is a fool's task if the ground game does not require air in any significant way besides galaxy transports.
Click to expand...

I would like to see the skyguard have an optional ammo choice that fires ballistic, non-flak rounds that have a higher muzzle velocity and do more damage. At longer ranges it will probably be harder to hit an ESF with those since ESFs are smaller and the ballistic roundswon't burst, but a bigger target like a Galaxy or liberator could still be hit at longer ranges.
 
Revolution 11 said:
The game would benefit from "hubs" of bases. A large base in the center of the hub which connects to other hubs. The rest of the hub is smaller outposts which web out from the center base. To attack a new hub from a existing hub, you need the majority of the hub (some percentage) controlled. Doing it this way would really increase large base fights and allow zergs to skip smaller bases (which are horribly balanced for zergs) instead of being forced to wait 5 minutes for every single base capture while the zerg holds back the 5 defenders. A waste of time for everyone. It would make fights more productive, more meaningful, more intense, less boring, less time wasted, and give air and vehicles a valid reason to be used. And most importantly, it would increase the scale of fights in Planetside 2, its only saving grace from other better shooters.
Click to expand...

think the main resource areas could use being made into a already bigger hub then they already are

that said it would require a much larger map which is probably needed considering how dense much of the map already is
 
The hub size would be somewhere around 4-6 times the size of a Amp station. You can shrink the Tech, Amp, or Bio-Lab size a bit and use the other space to cram all the outposts in that hub. There would be between 3 and 7 hubs on a map. The existing map size can hold 3 hubs maybe. So yes the map size would increase, but it depends on how many hubs you want.

Once a faction holds the central base in a hub and a certain percentage of the outlying outposts, the hub is now in their control and the surrounding hubs are unlocked for attack. You can add time requirements to get a hub in your control so it doesn't switch 20 times in 10 minutes. If you don't hold the central base, you don't have control of the hub. If you have control of a hub and lose everything but the central base, you still have control of the hub but don't have the ability to attack other hubs. This prevents silly attacks from hubs you obviously don't control and prevents silly attacks on surrounding friendly hubs where you are losing but have the central base still.

When a hub is unlocked for attack, you can capture outposts in that territory, a natural progression to capturing the central base. I am not sure if you should be required to have a lattice within a hub itself or just have the links between hubs which would be free-capture bases once unlocked.

I like the latter option because it funnels the factions into hubs of conflict (modified lattice system, more open areas between large bases/hubs) but the hubs themselves have no interior links (pre-lattice system) which allows for flanking attacks and surprise moves by small teams of infantry.
 
Last edited:
To clarify, holding a majority of outposts and the central base lets you attack from that hub. Holding just the central base prevents other factions from attacking from that hub. Not holding the central base at all means you don't control that hub at all.

The only real flaw of this hub system is that fights will be way too focused on big central bases. But the current system is not focused enough on big bases. So this is still better than the current lattice system.

Controlling the side outposts will give some attacker bonuses if you don't hold the central base. If you hold the central base, you get defender bonuses in those outposts. SOE will have to figure out what these bonuses are, but you could have something like stationary turrets only working in a hub if you control the central base. But if you control the central base (defending), you don't get to deploy sunderers within certain parts of the hub while the attackers do. Something like this would add flavor to the meta-game.

This emphasizes the attacker's advantage in mobility and initiative in return for the defender's advantage in durability and killing power.
 
Last edited:
Red Storm said:
Then why fly ESF? If the Lib is great against both ground and air, there's no reason to fly anything but Libs. It needs a more dedicated counter, they have too much armor, are too nimble, and can attack from too far away for ground AA to be a serious threat.

I feel ESF should be the air superiority fighter, the complement to Libs (air to ground specialists).
Click to expand...

well if they buf the esf AA missle vs lib damage, and the AA gun damage vs them, that would do it


I have my 3 loadouts set out like so for the mossy:
aa missles and aa gun
aa gun and ag rockets
ag gun and rockets

only helps if I know what fight I am wandering into of course

but if Im escorting galaxys, its loadout 1 which is my default

if im escorting ground troups its 2 or 3
 
Haven't played much lately, but the few times I am on today I've been having fun with the AMS sundy. It's amazing what a difference a well placed sundy can make in a battle.

One time TR were once hitting our tech plant, and would steamrolled it pretty quickly given their position of attack. But just before they started rolling in I placed an AMS sundy right behind this giant rock outcrop that everyone started spawing from, and because of that a huge defensive battle went on for well over an hour before NC came in and hit us from behind. The TR lost a lot of Prowlers that otherwise would have spawn camped us.

In this game since release I've gone from sniper to dedicated Lightning driver to light assault to dedicated ESF peasant destroyer to peasant wagon AMS driver. 😛
 
Last edited:
That's the beauty of the game. I thought from the beginning that I would remain a medic forever. Then I shifted to heavy rocketman and then a brief disaster into ESF pilot and then a tank driver and engineer combo and then I moved to a light-assault/infiltrator.

And then I finally returned to my beloved medic class and discovered that it was better than ever because of my experience with the other facets of the game.
 
so i was playing for a while yesterday

they seemed to have nerfed the jet packs again after just giving them more power not that long ago

not sure what is worse weak jump packs or having to deal with constantly nerfed or boosted jump packs

can we just give the jump packs their old power back

any of you guys have a problem with full power jump packs
 
norseamd said:
so i was playing for a while yesterday

they seemed to have nerfed the jet packs again after just giving them more power not that long ago

not sure what is worse weak jump packs or having to deal with constantly nerfed or boosted jump packs

can we just give the jump packs their old power back

any of you guys have a problem with full power jump packs
Click to expand...

Neither Lightnings nor Light Assault have the agility, or in the case of LA, the fuel, to perform their implied role.
 
Is the valkyrie even out? I haven't seen it once....

Actually, the concept is interesting. I just don't think the lattice allows for enough freedom of movement to have enough small-scale fights where this vehicle would matter. Swift flanking moves in narrow ridges and valleys could be useful.
 
Revolution 11 said:
Is the valkyrie even out? I haven't seen it once.... Actually, the concept is interesting. I just don't think the lattice allows for enough freedom of movement to have enough small-scale fights where this vehicle would matter. Swift flanking moves in narrow ridges and valleys could be useful.
Click to expand...

we need a high speed air transport

the galaxy is so slow that it can hardly get anywhere without getting blown up by ground fire
 
norseamd said:
we need a high speed air transport

the galaxy is so slow that it can hardly get anywhere without getting blown up by ground fire
Click to expand...
How fast are we talking about? Fast as a ESF? Considering all the AA in this game, that may not be fast enough if you have to hover for a few seconds over a base.

If it is just a gun platform, I don't see it having enough firepower or armor to matter in any large fight without getting blown out of the sky.

I do think this is a good vehicle. But there are so few small fights where you would actually need a rapid hovercraft. I do see value in rapid transport.
 
How stable are these seats? Because I find it hard to hit anything at all when in the back of the Harasser. The Valkyrie flies so there are no bumps but low-altitude air flight can't be exactly straight without getting shot down.
 
Revolution 11 said:
How fast are we talking about? Fast as a ESF? Considering all the AA in this game, that may not be fast enough if you have to hover for a few seconds over a base.
Click to expand...

all you have to do is fly low enough to the ground that any troops can jump right out without too much hit points lost
 
So how is the EM1 LMG for the NC heavy? I have tried the "God Saw" and either there is too much hype around that gun or I just suck at controlling the crazy vertical recoil.

I already have the GD-22s and I love the gun, it is more of a assault rifle than LMG. Jack of all trades yet somehow it just works.

But now, I want a proper LMG with more ROF because the constant reloads are killing me and lane control is something you can't do with the GD-22s. So I am looking at the EM1, more bullet velocity and ROF than the EM6. In comparison, when playing as the TR, I like their LMGs with 143 dmg so I don't think the damage per bullet will disappoint.

If the EM1 is worth getting, what attachments are good? Extended mags or the foregrip. I will not get the laser sights, I ADS 99% of the time, even when I can hit with a knife. :'(
 
The Pulsar maybe? It is slightly better than the Orion.

I don't really like any of the Vanu guns, the recoil for most of them is annoying. And your shots are bright, it is easy to see where they come from even during daytime.

Something about the Vanu ground combat just doesn't seem substantial.

norseamd, what is your opinion on the EM1?
 
Revolution 11 said:
The Pulsar maybe? It is slightly better than the Orion. I don't really like any of the Vanu guns, the recoil for most of them is annoying. And your shots are bright, it is easy to see where they come from even during daytime. Something about the Vanu ground combat just doesn't seem substantial. norseamd, what is your opinion on the EM1?
Click to expand...

have only played with the vanu soveirgnty on connerry

so the tr and nc guns have less recoil than the vs guns?
 
norseamd said:
have only played with the vanu soveirgnty on connerry

so the tr and nc guns have less recoil than the vs guns?
Click to expand...

Again, I don't know the exact values but subjectively, it feels like less than Vanu guns which seem to jump around with every shot. Maybe I don't have the technique for these guns perfected yet.

I find myself getting weird headshots with the T9 Carv when I should clearly be missing. The T9 also has high recoil but here it works in the gun's favor. Vanu guns have recoil that always hurts them (for me).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top