Tactical Misconceptions Pt1: Bio Lab.

[NewSith]

PlanetSide 2 as of now is a unique game.

The uniqueness of it is that developers are trying so hard to eliminate any advantage defenders have, and provide an edge to attackers instead. How is that happening? And why is that happening? Well, let's take the structures, most indicative in that regard: Bases.

Bio Lab
http://i.stack.imgur.com/NhksX.jpg

Supposed Developers' Idea:
The original purpose of a Biolab was to create an enclosed urban combat amidst an open battleground. Now the thing about urban combat is that you never know where to expect the attack from. Developers most certainly had that in mind while developing the interior. In every urban combat - the objective is to isolate, secure, and push through the outskirts of the urban area, to prevent the enemy from entering the labyrynth and getting lost inside it.

Tactical Assessment:
Let's just imagine for a second 4 squads of people fighting a 2sq versus 2sq match on a biolab. The defending squad will try and take and hold the control of a satellite base that has a teleporter to the SCU shield gen. The rest of the defending team will hold the pads and teleporters. Devs had that in mind when the base was designed.

Truth:
What happens however is a whole different story. The game is supposed to force teamwork, but what it really does is it promotes zerging. Zerg has no brain, no coordination, and most importantly, no communication due to region chat being totally counter-intuitive. And as a result the base is a chaotic fight with enemies constantly popping behind your back, killing you and moving on to kill more. That's how it goes for most of the zerglings fighting for a Biolab. The situation is especially dire due to the scale fo the game, the coordination you need to have in place for a succesful BioLab defense is huge and in the current environment is unreachable at all.

Problems (From My Standpoint):

Attacking side has an advantage over defending side, even at the CP placement. Defenders only have 1 point in the vicinity of their spawnroom, while enemy has free reign over the remaining two. This is something you can also find on any tower or a multiple-point outpost.
Both airpads are easily accessible. You make only one pad accessible and the fight changes that instant. Zergling will fight for the reachable pad, while clever people will try to either use a ramp and make it around the dome for the prestine airpad or try and galdrop on it.
The base design includes 2+ teleporters, the ultimate bane of any constructve fight there.
It is "the bane" because of the effect 2 entrances with shields give. The shield that let people camp inside and shoot outside make it totally impossible to bottleneck the attackers in any way.
Light Assault. It really seems like developers are forgetting about that obstacle-ignoring class they added. They rule the night on any biolab and only cause people to rage over senseless deaths. There is no way to stop them, while there should be.

Finally, it is totally worth to mention that Biolab is the only base that has the spawnroom situated INSIDE the superstructure. However a Biolab is in fact an outdoor environment, limited to infantry only. So the effect is ghostly, to say the least. Defenders are still getting camped inside without the ability to push out.




I'll bring the 2 other bases misconceptions to the surface later and 1 overall feedback that sums up the misconception common for all three and other bases.

[Sawboss]

While I do love this game I agree the base designs need changing and do not really feel like bases, also the layouts are mind boggling. There's jump pads, teleports and forcefields all over the place which really don't help the feeling of attacking or defending a base.

[Mavvvy]

Well said! Never have like fighting In them but for a different (yet related) reason, its the place people go to "farm".

PS 2 has got to be the only instance in which you need more defenders then attackers to win.

[Figment]

Due to the impenetrable shields, it can't be exited due to being insta-killed. Basically, auto-drive makes it impossible to use the bottom to push out, simply because it's too confined to organise, you role out of the gates and die to whoever camps it.

This same problem occurs at other bases. Shields are nice, but like teleporters and jumppads, contribute greatly to separating and breaking the flow of fights and induce two sides camping each end of the shield.

The base of the tower attracts a lot of attention while people don't understand that the way to get up there is by long distance jump/teleporting. And since these fights are so disconnected, you often jump/teleport in front of firing squads without any planned way of taking them out.

A gate shield can be circumvented by air and accessed by infantry. Now if we had old-school infils that could pass through shields and remained cloaked, we'd have had a chance to reach shield generators in otherwise unachievable locations (would bring back explosives for that).

Teleporters create problems for defenders since they automatically bypass the airpad defense. Immediately spreading defense over a large area and tons of corridors + as you said, the Light Assault routes.

If teleporters would require both sides under control, you'd get an infiltration or single wave objective. A job for infiltrators or Gal Drops for instance.

Next to that, the ground and top fight need to be connected better. Teleporters, elevators and jump pads shouldn't be too far from the airpads and could be acquirable linearly to create cuts in speed of accessing the top from bottom.

I proposed this a while back for that:

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/4884/biodomecatwalksystem.jpg (http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/4884/biodomecatwalksystem.jpg)

Apparently they did try that, but the stairs took too many polygons. I would then say use ramps instead and try to cut smaller sections rather than make these big gaps in movement. I'm no fan of them due to their predictable nature of arrival without a careful, controlled approach (using cover), but even ziplines/jumppads would help if the distances wern't too great.

[NewSith]

I proposed this a while back for that:

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/4884/biodomecatwalksystem.jpg (http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/4884/biodomecatwalksystem.jpg)

Apparently they did try that, but the stairs took too many polygons. I would then say use ramps instead and try to cut smaller sections rather than make these big gaps in movement. I'm no fan of them due to their predictable nature of arrival without a careful, controlled approach (using cover), but even ziplines/jumppads would help if the distances wern't too great.

Yeah, saw that, and my opinion on them not telling truth about it, didn't change a single bit.

[Canaris]

I know we don't see eye to eye on a lot of stuff Fig but that design is fucking great. Similar to something I proposed back in TT for the labs with ramps from the surrounding walls into the top part, akin to the PS1 base layout, they really need to turn the bases back into fortresses.

[Sledgecrushr]

Base defenses need a buff. As a defender you should feel there is at least a chance at a sucess.

[PurpleOtter]

Simply put, bases in this game are designed from the start to not be defensible. Bases are arbitrary meeting places to fight. It's actually easier to pick a pile of rocks in the open some where to defend, at least you can see your enemy coming. Let me give you a few examples:

1. No doors that can be secured.
2. Non contiguous outer walls, these actually hinder the defense by providing cover to the attackers.
3. Multiple ingress/egress to critical infrastructure. You can never count on having your back covered.
4. Base layouts/floor plans that deliberately make no sense that are designed to confuse.

All of this is driven by the meta game philosophy of "game flow". I hate it.

[Miffy]

All that happens is people capture an outpost with a teleport straight in there, it then becomes camp the spawn until you lose or your forces come from some other base and kick them out of the teleport room.

[Qwan]

I dont know guys I have to beg to differ on the defence of the bio lab, 2 squads would be pressed to defend it, 2sq vs 2sqd, niether would be able to capture it, its just to big. But defending a bio lab takes tactics, my outfit has done it against a zerg, not to mention it took 3 squads and a few randoms. The object is to not get dug in, defending the ports and pads. Our tactic was pretty simple, while the zerg is pushing we would send a squad back to sanc (this is a continues move by the way), to get gals, libs, just by using air to ground tactics, like the first run can be a lib run, with air support. This desimates ground forces, we have used this technique in the past with success. Then after that we move to gal drop on outside bases, you have to remember if its the zerg there all over the place, and sparatic. Simply taking away there port you can give them either pads or gal drops. Then there is a heavy tank column with ground support. This can be done when we have a full platoon, the zerg is a simple beast to break sometimes. Just by applying to much pressure it will redirect to easier targets and sometimes even rage quit :lol:.

Now skilled outfits are a different story, You pretty much have to out smart, and sometimes in the bio dome its like pulling teeth. It depends on the courdination of the outfit, there going to try there techinqe and you going to apply yours. Weather its just taking away there access to the base, I.E. Pads and ports, or just holding and taking outside bases so they dont have hack ability anymore. The second one has always been the way during slow hrs on woodman server. When we knew we were up against an outfit we would simply hold the bio lab and slowly take away there ability to hack it, and with alot of these outfits it somtimes the only way.

Anyway I dont see the bio lab as not defendible, its just you have to find ways that will prevent the enemy from gaining access.

[Figment]

Anyway I dont see the bio lab as not defendible, its just you have to find ways that will prevent the enemy from gaining access.

Well the Bio Lab isn't indefensible, I think what we're saying is it's unsecurable, from the inside.

Now, it's okay if you have enough people to fall back, but often times you don't. And even in that situation an even pop should result in either side being able to make a decisive move. Currently I feel only the attackers can because of the SCU being in the vicinity where ALL fighting occurs. You can't really gradually push back an attacker from the inside in every Bio Lab fight.

Defenders are usualy ultimately pretty stuck and especially if they have few to even hold all entrances against an equal number of players, they will in fact lose without the enemy having to play tactical.

[NewSith]

Anyway I dont see the bio lab as not defendible, its just you have to find ways that will prevent the enemy from gaining access.

Yes, what Figgy said, though I'd rather use the word "uncontrollable".

There is a Bio Lab, people defend it, but you never have that feeling that the base defense is under control, there is no "graduality" in it, indeed.

[Oroshi]

The force fields are the issue for me, you take a teleporter and people will prefer to sit in the shield room, and not push out, same with the spawn, I've been at several base defense, and the numbers of people in the spawn room, is greater than those outside, but they can get easy kills, while waiting for the base to change hands, then come back and cap it again later.

I love the idea behind this game, and looked forwards to it so much, but SOE designed it around the lowest common denominator (I know that makes easy profit). They don't want the bases to be defended for too long, its all about fast moving fights to appeal to players who log in for 30 minutes to an hour, that have to achieve something.

[Ghoest9]

Wrong OP.

Defenders could hold a biodome - if most of them played with that goal in mind.

But you earn more certs by only defending the choke points and trying to maintain the fight at the choke points as long as possible. If you do this you eventually will fall but you can drag out out and get lots of kills.

If you play smart drive the enemy back and shut off his access to teleporters you get almost no certs for all your bother.
Last night for instance for some reason we did all the right stuff and push back an invasion. It was actually kind of lame. A lot of messing around for little gain.




For the record I have a great deal of fun switching a biodome back and fort over time and earn a lot of certs doing it.

[DirkSmacker]

I see what the OP is saying, but I rather like fighting in biolabs. If they were to make them more defensible by eliminating an attacking TP, I'd hope they would only do that on one biolab per map to add some variety.

[NewSith]

Wrong OP.

Defenders could hold a biodome - if most of them played with that goal in mind.

But you earn more certs by only defending the choke points and trying to maintain the fight at the choke points as long as possible. If you do this you eventually will fall but you can drag out out and get lots of kills.

If you play smart drive the enemy back and shut off his access to teleporters you get almost no certs for all your bother.
Last night for instance for some reason we did all the right stuff and push back an invasion. It was actually kind of lame. A lot of messing around for little gain.

Than how exactly am I wrong? :)

The Biolab is designed for zergish farming, you just said that. Not to mention that other bases cannot provide even that. Do you agree with me on that?

[Figment]

Wrong OP.

If he's wrong, then why are you... confirming all his claims?

:huh:

Seems like you missed the point of the OP... As in. Completely.

I see what the OP is saying, but I rather like fighting in biolabs. If they were to make them more defensible by eliminating an attacking TP, I'd hope they would only do that on one biolab per map to add some variety.

It's more that there should be a viable way to push out for defenders to win, rather than stalemate endlessly at max.

[Rivenshield]

akin to the PS1 base layout, they really need to turn the bases back into fortresses.

Not going to happen.

We're not the target audience for this game. The run-&-gun instant-gratification CoD kiddies are.

/morose

[AThreatToYou]

Light Assaults problem in your biolab?

LOOK UP. IS IT REALLY THAT HARD?

if it is really that hard,

Go grab LA, jump on the roof tops, and fight them on their own level. Having a good squad of LAs shut down the ceilings to hostiles will make it easier for your faction to farm, and for you too!

[Figment]

Ugh, "L2P-noob"-status-quo-defenders can get really annoying with their lack of analysis will, lack of future vision or even descerning capacity of need for L2P comments by simply assuming by default someone else "just doesn't know how to deal with it".

Annoying as hell. Newsflash AThreatToYou: NewSith isn't a noob. He deals with it.

[Timealude]

Not going to happen.

We're not the target audience for this game. The run-&-gun instant-gratification CoD kiddies are.

/morose

Although I agree something needs to be done about the base defense, I dont think turning it back into corridors and stairs are the way to good. There's a balance you have to work out and it would make it extremely hard to take one of these bases if most of it was completely covered. I like Fig's design in the sense it adds those choke points but there are still ways to get around them if you are smart enough. You can also have vehicles support you if the stairs are outside instead of having the mounted defense like you had in PS1 where all you had to do was sit there with a few people and just constantly fire.

That would then turn the problem back into the farming problem we had with the tech plants, but Ill save that for when the tech plant thread goes up.

The devs need to find the right balance for these choke points otherwise the zerging is going to continue to get worse to where being in an outfit wont matter since you and 100 other people can just rush in shooting without thinking.

[NewSith]

Light Assaults problem in your biolab?

LOOK UP. IS IT REALLY THAT HARD?

if it is really that hard,

Go grab LA, jump on the roof tops, and fight them on their own level. Having a good squad of LAs shut down the ceilings to hostiles will make it easier for your faction to farm, and for you too!

Okay, I'll do that. Meanwhile why are you assuming I propose to remove or handicap the LAs anyhow?

[ringring]

Take an outlying base with a teleporter, park an AMS outside.
Group up until you haveplenty of maxes engys and medics then go thru and don't hold back.
Attack the gen, within the building holding point B.
Overload the gen and defend the building.
Keep defending the building, it is very defendable because of it's size as grenades are less of a problem and the stairs are good places for the non maxes.
When you can, attack the SCU.
Ignore the capture points until the SCU is down.

[Simokon]

Light Assaults problem in your biolab?

LOOK UP. IS IT REALLY THAT HARD?

if it is really that hard,

Go grab LA, jump on the roof tops, and fight them on their own level. Having a good squad of LAs shut down the ceilings to hostiles will make it easier for your faction to farm, and for you too!

It is pretty amazing how often I run out of ammo before anyone even bothers to look up and wonder where those shots are coming from.

[AThreatToYou]

Okay, I'll do that. Meanwhile why are you assuming I propose to remove or handicap the LAs anyhow?

Good point. I shall say I have misunderstood you.

What do you mean by Light Assault troopers posing a problem in bio labs? They can get anywhere, they contribute to the random-encounter nature of urban warfare. Perhaps a building in BioLabs should be changed to allow non-LAs to at least get to a high perch, above the buildings?

Actually, I like that. It would be a temporary measure, and there would still be places to hide, but making battle a little more vertical wouldn't hurt. I agree that LAs are a problem in BioLabs, but I really only think they are because not enough people who are defending seem to play them.

[Bocheezu]

The only thing they need to do is somehow make the teleporter rooms a contestable room with shields on both sides so that the defenders can use them to assault the satellite bases. Currently, once you lose a satellite base, you're pretty much fucked and have to resort to leaving the biolab and returning with vehicles to take back the satellite bases. Jumppads are a piss-poor option because there's no shield on the other side and you have no idea what you're going to run into after you jump; there could be nobody there or there could be a bunch of dudes sitting there farming. Gravlifts are too far away from satellite bases to be effective for defense.

The one-way teleporter rooms are a massive advantage for the attacking force.

[bpostal]

...ziplines...

As long as we don't get crazy with 'em like in the caves.
God bless the fraggles because if I was forced to go down in there I would end up needing a shower.

[Figment]

As long as we don't get crazy with 'em like in the caves.

Oh please no. X_x

Pie bless waypoints and after a few years knowing where they all go and where the e-terms were...


Similarly, I always liked Routers, due to being creative, flexible, skill based (infiltration), temporary, risky and counterable (and counter-abusable - HOORAY FOR ENEMY ROUTERS LEADING TO SPAWNS/BASEMENT <3 <3 <3 YOU CHEAP EXP WHORING BASTARDS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR BASE!), but I really dislike fixed in place teleport firing squad tubes. :/

[Ghoest9]

Than how exactly am I wrong? :)

The Biolab is designed for zergish farming, you just said that. Not to mention that other bases cannot provide even that. Do you agree with me on that?

Yes but you are also saying that by design bio-labs are hard to defend.

They are not hard to defend. Rather its simply more fun and more profitable to play them them in manner that leasts to an eventual loss.





Honestly I cant see why we would want change anything - at least until they add urban terrain.

[thegreekboy]

The big problem with the teleporters is that in order to take that advantage away, you need to actually STOP defending your spawn control and run out to take a camp.

[Ghoest9]

The big problem with the teleporters is that in order to take that advantage away, you need to actually STOP defending your spawn control and run out to take a camp.

Yes this is a big problem is you only have 2 people. /em rolls eyes


If you cant spare anyone to go clear the teleporters thats because you are significantly out manned or you are facing better players.


On the other hand if its like ~90% of bio-dome fights. A competent 4 man squad could handle it.

[Figment]

Yes this is a big problem is you only have 2 people. /em rolls eyes


If you cant spare anyone to go clear the teleporters thats because you are significantly out manned or you are facing better players.


On the other hand if its like ~90% of bio-dome fights. A competent 4 man squad could handle it.

You want to defend AND break out of a Bio Lab with a 4 man squad? Riiiight. Guess you never seen how many the enemy can spare to camp their end. You know, the points where all their troops go through before they take the attack into the Bio Dome.




So it's about zerging winning by default instead of smart game play.

[Figment]

Yes but you are also saying that by design bio-labs are hard to defend.

We explicitly stated on several occassions we said that's not the case. We said it's vulnerable to breaking if you relent on any point's defense.

They are not hard to defend. Rather its simply more fun and more profitable to play them them in manner that leasts to an eventual loss.

.................................................. .....................

"Farming that leads to a loss is fun." And you play competitive conquest games, for... what purpose again?

[velleity]

There only need to be 6 facilities on a cont. the three empires can just trade caps.

Better yet each empire gets its own island, and facilities can flip on a counter clockwise timer. Afks from other factions on other islands can be spawned in for
authenticity and supplement br1s. This way the faction can chase its tail against undefended base caps all day long.

[morganm]

I get where yall are coming from; the bases were obviously not designed to be easily defensible. No military in their right mind would do stupid things like building big outer walls with gaps large enough for tanks to drive through, put shield generators outside of the shields they were generating, or put in so many easy access ways to critical infrastructure.

They were NOT designed to be easily defended! It's pretty clear most of the game was designed with the idea of "Nowhere is safe" and fast paced combat where objectives are constantly changing hands.

I think they were trying to avoid the meat-grinder / farm scenarios where a small defending force can hold a facility while huge numbers of attackers die trying to even get in let alone take the base. They didn't want hours of siege on one station. Personally I wouldn't want to play that game either.

Frankly I like the game how it is. I don't see the fact that facilities are constantly, and quickly, changing hands as a bad thing. I'm glad that a small number of people can't defend positions against overwhelming opposition. It's awesome that there are so many variables and ways to penetrate a station because it's more of a challenge to defend and more variety in strategy.

There is strategy involved here at individual facilities and at the continental level but not like some are advocating here. What's interesting, to me, is that there isn't one or a few 100% strategies to defend anything. The fast pace changing continent makes leadership have to really be on the ball with coordinating their forces and making decisions on where to go. You have to be coordinated, diverse, and quick to adapt to circumstances in order to defend and be successful in this game. Sorry it's not as easy as "man the turrets, defend the choke points, and we'll hold the fort indefinitely!" Honestly I'm glad it's not like that.

[DirkSmacker]

The big problem with the teleporters is that in order to take that advantage away, you need to actually STOP defending your spawn control and run out to take a camp.
Isn't it a good thing that defenders can choose to take a risk to stop how many points the attackers can come from?

[Figment]

I get where yall are coming from; the bases were obviously not designed to be easily defensible. No military in their right mind would do stupid things like building big outer walls with gaps large enough for tanks to drive through, put shield generators outside of the shields they were generating, or put in so many easy access ways to critical infrastructure.

They were NOT designed to be easily defended! It's pretty clear most of the game was designed with the idea of "Nowhere is safe" and fast paced combat where objectives are constantly changing hands.

I don't think that most people that here "A base is yours till they come take it from you!" (Higby's motto), never should have meant that they should just come back, walk in and snatch it right out of your hands while the paint is still wet.

JUST because they have a few more people.

I think they were trying to avoid the meat-grinder / farm scenarios where a small defending force can hold a facility while huge numbers of attackers die trying to even get in let alone take the base. They didn't want hours of siege on one station. Personally I wouldn't want to play that game either.

You probable would if it provides a good balance.

I got one question for you, when you were younger and you played with puzzles. Did you go from 10 pieces to 25 pieces to 100 pieces to 250 and eventually 1000 pieces, or 15.000 pieces with just clear blue sky?



Because attacking is like a puzzle. finding a solution to a problem: How do I take this away from them?


Say the ultimate farm would be 15.000 pieces, pretty damn nigh impossible.

PS1 would be: Bio Lab 500 pieces or you could break then gen, then it'd be 10 pieces (the challenge was in expanding from one), AMP Station, 500 pieces, Tech Plant 2500 pieces, DSC 3500 pieces and Interlink 5000 pieces. Still pretty doable for the smart players. Only idiots would get farmed because they got lost in the puzzle.

PS2 should be around 2500-3000 pieces to give the zergling and the smart player both a good challenge that they can solve.


Currently, the defensive puzzle is 20.000 for outposts (unsolvable), 15000 for most bigger bases (nigh impossible) and 150 for the Crown, since the attacker there faces two puzzles: a 1000 pieces and another 2500 pieces on its side (second empire). It can be cracked pretty well, but it's a grind.

The attacking puzzle for any outpost however, is in the order of 10-25. Pretty damn simple. Babies could do it: just a straight forward frontal assault from ANY direction. Done.

If the solution is obvious, can you imagine that the fast people would get bored off it really fast, because 25 pieces for a puzzle is pretty damn little to pose for a challenge?

Frankly I like the game how it is. I don't see the fact that facilities are constantly, and quickly, changing hands as a bad thing. I'm glad that a small number of people can't defend positions against overwhelming opposition. It's awesome that there are so many variables and ways to penetrate a station because it's more of a challenge to defend and more variety in strategy.

So basically, you want people demoralised because they can't make a stand. :/ Because we're not all like you. The game isn't designed just around your position. It's supposed to offer something to ALL of us. If all of us were zerglings in zergfits, we'd have left PS1 years ago. Why? Because it'd be too easy for players of our capacity to play with just numbers.

We - as players - have a need to excel at something. To prove to ourselves we can handle a challenge. Not being allowed to do that by being made fodder by design makes us feel as treated as some low level AI mob in a quest: we're there to entertain the opposition, not for our own entertainment, while both of us are there for entertainment.

You're looking at this far too much from your perspective. What you want is a 50-100 pieces puzzle. Most of us think that's far too little. We want something between 1000 and 3500, that's true for both defense (with less people) and attack (with more people).

Why? Because that makes it satisfying. You cracked that tough cookie. You didn't steal candy from a baby. You @*^#@*$ made a feat happen!

There is strategy involved here at individual facilities and at the continental level but not like some are advocating here. What's interesting, to me, is that there isn't one or a few 100% strategies to defend anything. The fast pace changing continent makes leadership have to really be on the ball with coordinating their forces and making decisions on where to go. You have to be coordinated, diverse, and quick to adapt to circumstances in order to defend and be successful in this game.

I completely disagree. There's no strategy involved whatsoever on neither level. If you were a leader, which you clearly aren't, you'd understand that organisation requires time.

Time is something PS2 doesn't give you. So you can claim we "have to be on the ball", but we were people who in PS1 would have 15 minutes to react to something, first we'd need to scout if it's worth interest from a few people, that would leave say 6-12 minutes, depending on how soon something was spotted, then we need to ask for backup, which can take a few more minutes and they won't arrive in force, meanwhile you need to plan and execute at the same time. Preferably with enough time left to get people back to the other frontline before that front collapses completely. That too requires less people to only slowly lose ground and be able to stall. Because if stalling is impossible, then you'll just have lost both at the same time and responding to anything is pointless.


That's currently the case. Respond, you lose the other side. The only thing you can hope for is that they overextend and disperse, after which you do it to them and return the collapse favour. Which is utterly boring, disastrous for morale and ultimately makes the game feel pointless, because there's no achievement and it's not your doing.

In extreme cases, we needed to get over 100 people CONVINCED that leaving their current fight was more important than grinding an exp farm, then have them travel to another continent, or part of a continent, organise such that they can tackle the local defenses set up by the holder by pushing the right positions and then clear them out, make sure they're cleared out and per chance hold for another 15 mins, or set up for a good counter attack or defense of multiple links.

But at least, if you managed to stall them by taking off an early hack, few could hold till reinforcements would come.


In PS2, we're looking at many continents being on the flipping side at the same time. You get overloaded with vague information that's all vying for your attention. You have about 5 minutes to scout, send for help and organise and mount a counter offensive including non-local spawnpoints, probably against overwhelming numbers with a lot of one hit kill weapons and each player having their own vehicle.

In the meantime, the local spawn is beyond useless, you can't quickly reset a counter by a well coordinated resecure strike and as such stalling precision strikes aren't even an option.

That simply can't be stopped unless you have a reactionary army on standby. And even then you can only tackle one base at a time. It's way too fast and spread out to make good decisions and you simply don't have time to zergherd.

You even only have ONE /orders per 5 minutes, opposed to the 3 coms in PS1 per minute.


You have any idea what kind of logistical challenge you propose? This cannot be done in the context of single-two squads at max online outfits, which the majority of outfits consist of.

Sorry it's not as easy as "man the turrets, defend the choke points, and we'll hold the fort indefinitely!" Honestly I'm glad it's not like that.

Just curious, but why is it people like you (I'm generalizing here, forgive me), always make these exageration statements that suggest ANY increase in defensibility would make this instant-Hamburger Hill?


And where do you get this silly notion that people who simply want a skilled group to hold of larger numbers wwant some kind of fortress of doom? We're not talking the 1470 siege of Rhodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1480)) (3500 vs at minimum five to perhaps twenty times their numbers), or the second siege of (7500 vs 100.000) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1522)) here. Pretty damn impressive defensive fortifications, but that's a bit much for a game. We want something consistent between a PS1 AMP station and a PS1 tech/DSC for normal bases, probably a couple exceptions that are harder and for some smaller outposts something more like the PS1 bio lab (quite easy, but not a push-over either if the defenders do it well), more to scale with a tower with courtyard and outer wall than a shed.

I don't think anyone was happy with the Tech Plant, either defenders or attackers, since it was just an unfullfilling meatgrind of two little doors (less doors and SMALLER doors than in PS1, while we all asked for bigger doors, so there was less grind to get in... Especially with more people potentially waiting).



Fact of the matter is, the bases were designed with a deathmatch "modern shooter" style map in mind, while in fact, it should have been based on a "conquest map", which are more linear in advancement. (And yes, you can be more linear, while having a 360 degrees approach on a tower or base, it's a matter of ringed defense design which creates several phases of siege).

[Figment]

Isn't it a good thing that defenders can choose to take a risk to stop how many points the attackers can come from?

Not if it's a pretty guaranteed loss.

[Ghoest9]

I don't think that most people that here "A base is yours till they come take it from you!" (Higby's motto), never should have meant that they should just come back, walk in and snatch it right out of your hands while the paint is still wet.

JUST because they have a few more people.



You probable would if it provides a good balance.

I got one question for you, when you were younger and you played with puzzles. Did you go from 10 pieces to 25 pieces to 100 pieces to 250 and eventually 1000 pieces, or 15.000 pieces with just clear blue sky?



Because attacking is like a puzzle. finding a solution to a problem: How do I take this away from them?


Say the ultimate farm would be 15.000 pieces, pretty damn nigh impossible.

PS1 would be: Bio Lab 500 pieces or you could break then gen, then it'd be 10 pieces (the challenge was in expanding from one), AMP Station, 500 pieces, Tech Plant 2500 pieces, DSC 3500 pieces and Interlink 5000 pieces. Still pretty doable for the smart players. Only idiots would get farmed because they got lost in the puzzle.

PS2 should be around 2500-3000 pieces to give the zergling and the smart player both a good challenge that they can solve.


Currently, the defensive puzzle is 20.000 for outposts (unsolvable), 15000 for most bigger bases (nigh impossible) and 150 for the Crown, since the attacker there faces two puzzles: a 1000 pieces and another 2500 pieces on its side (second empire). It can be cracked pretty well, but it's a grind.

The attacking puzzle for any outpost however, is in the order of 10-25. Pretty damn simple. Babies could do it: just a straight forward frontal assault from ANY direction. Done.

If the solution is obvious, can you imagine that the fast people would get bored off it really fast, because 25 pieces for a puzzle is pretty damn little to pose for a challenge?



So basically, you want people demoralised because they can't make a stand. :/ Because we're not all like you. The game isn't designed just around your position. It's supposed to offer something to ALL of us. If all of us were zerglings in zergfits, we'd have left PS1 years ago. Why? Because it'd be too easy for players of our capacity to play with just numbers.

We - as players - have a need to excel at something. To prove to ourselves we can handle a challenge. Not being allowed to do that by being made fodder by design makes us feel as treated as some low level AI mob in a quest: we're there to entertain the opposition, not for our own entertainment, while both of us are there for entertainment.

You're looking at this far too much from your perspective. What you want is a 50-100 pieces puzzle. Most of us think that's far too little. We want something between 1000 and 3500, that's true for both defense (with less people) and attack (with more people).

Why? Because that makes it satisfying. You cracked that tough cookie. You didn't steal candy from a baby. You @*^#@*$ made a feat happen!



I completely disagree. There's no strategy involved whatsoever on neither level. If you were a leader, which you clearly aren't, you'd understand that organisation requires time.

Time is something PS2 doesn't give you. So you can claim we "have to be on the ball", but we were people who in PS1 would have 15 minutes to react to something, first we'd need to scout if it's worth interest from a few people, that would leave say 6-12 minutes, depending on how soon something was spotted, then we need to ask for backup, which can take a few more minutes and they won't arrive in force, meanwhile you need to plan and execute at the same time. Preferably with enough time left to get people back to the other frontline before that front collapses completely. That too requires less people to only slowly lose ground and be able to stall. Because if stalling is impossible, then you'll just have lost both at the same time and responding to anything is pointless.


That's currently the case. Respond, you lose the other side. The only thing you can hope for is that they overextend and disperse, after which you do it to them and return the collapse favour. Which is utterly boring, disastrous for morale and ultimately makes the game feel pointless, because there's no achievement and it's not your doing.

In extreme cases, we needed to get over 100 people CONVINCED that leaving their current fight was more important than grinding an exp farm, then have them travel to another continent, or part of a continent, organise such that they can tackle the local defenses set up by the holder by pushing the right positions and then clear them out, make sure they're cleared out and per chance hold for another 15 mins, or set up for a good counter attack or defense of multiple links.

But at least, if you managed to stall them by taking off an early hack, few could hold till reinforcements would come.


In PS2, we're looking at many continents being on the flipping side at the same time. You get overloaded with vague information that's all vying for your attention. You have about 5 minutes to scout, send for help and organise and mount a counter offensive including non-local spawnpoints, probably against overwhelming numbers with a lot of one hit kill weapons and each player having their own vehicle.

In the meantime, the local spawn is beyond useless, you can't quickly reset a counter by a well coordinated resecure strike and as such stalling precision strikes aren't even an option.

That simply can't be stopped unless you have a reactionary army on standby. And even then you can only tackle one base at a time. It's way too fast and spread out to make good decisions and you simply don't have time to zergherd.

You even only have ONE /orders per 5 minutes, opposed to the 3 coms in PS1 per minute.


You have any idea what kind of logistical challenge you propose? This cannot be done in the context of single-two squads at max online outfits, which the majority of outfits consist of.



Just curious, but why is it people like you (I'm generalizing here, forgive me), always make these exageration statements that suggest ANY increase in defensibility would make this instant-Hamburger Hill?


And where do you get this silly notion that people who simply want a skilled group to hold of larger numbers wwant some kind of fortress of doom? We're not talking the 1470 siege of Rhodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1480)) (3500 vs at minimum five to perhaps twenty times their numbers), or the second siege of (7500 vs 100.000) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1522)) here. Pretty damn impressive defensive fortifications, but that's a bit much for a game. We want something consistent between a PS1 AMP station and a PS1 tech/DSC for normal bases, probably a couple exceptions that are harder and for some smaller outposts something more like the PS1 bio lab (quite easy, but not a push-over either if the defenders do it well), more to scale with a tower with courtyard and outer wall than a shed.

I don't think anyone was happy with the Tech Plant, either defenders or attackers, since it was just an unfullfilling meatgrind of two little doors (less doors and SMALLER doors than in PS1, while we all asked for bigger doors, so there was less grind to get in... Especially with more people potentially waiting).



Fact of the matter is, the bases were designed with a deathmatch "modern shooter" style map in mind, while in fact, it should have been based on a "conquest map", which are more linear in advancement. (And yes, you can be more linear, while having a 360 degrees approach on a tower or base, it's a matter of ringed defense design which creates several phases of siege).


I think most players are more in agreement with morganms position than yours.

Given your history of championing preferences that almost no one else likes I would think you might have suspected this.

[NewSith]

I think most players are more in agreement with morganms position than yours.

Given your history of championing preferences that almost no one else likes I would think you might have suspected this.

I think most of the players who agree with Figgy don't give a f*ck anymore and play Airside with rocketpods and Dalton, while people who disagree (that stay on the ground getting farmed), prefer the game to be 2000 player Call of Duty and will leave the game once new CoD arrives.


In other words, please be constructive and respectful. Quoting the entire post to oppose something, that was said in the very beginning, with just 2 sentences looks rather douchy, even if it was never intended.

[Figment]

I think most players are more in agreement with morganms position than yours.

Given your history of championing preferences that almost no one else likes I would think you might have suspected this.

People never agree with me?
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/outpost-spawn-design-based-on-existing-building.65475/#post-814504
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/hud-feedback.55422/
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=46776
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=48006
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=43688
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41711
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=46088
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=49302
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41034
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=49173
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=44831


I'd show you PS1 development forum, where it used to be impossible to get a coherent unanimous, positive response.

Unfortunately, they deleted that. Should have seen the response to my lattice revision proposal then.

That same thread about Debunking myths over at PS2 beta forums gained me about 70+ likes for the opening post. EVERYONE in the thread agreed and that thread went for 7-8 pages too. I'd be interested to see your likes...

Member: Ghoest Messages: 678 Likes Received: 143
Member: Figment Messages: 657 Likes Received: 608

How many threads do I need to show you to indicate otherwise?


10, 100, 300? You have a very selective memory it seems. Usualy, if people disagree with me in a thread on PS things, it's a total number of three(ish) out of all the posters in said thread... Unless one group in particular feels personally threatened. OR if there's a lot of doubt.

Hell you should have seen the threads on what happened when the AMS was reintroduced. Have you seen just how many threads have been made on rocketpods and other such things being OP? You think all those people would disagree with me as well?


I'd really like to see your "evidence" in terms of a record to support a claim that people tend to disagree with me. Most will disagree on some points and that's only natural. We don't all have the same opinions.




EDIT: Btw, this thread, on spawncamping?
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=50008

40 people agree with me. 15 with you. Of which several are in a zergfit (huge outfit that doesn't need to do defense like other outfits).

I see how the majority tends to agree with you...