Huge Outfits and PlanetSide 2

[Hamma]

I had a great discussion on Twitter last night about this and wanted to bring it here.

First off let me start this thread by saying this is NOT an attack on specific outfits. I will not allow people to argue about specific outfits, this discussion is about the size of outfits in general and whether or not you think they hurt the game. Also, I don't want to hear bs like "ohh you're doing it wrong" etc.

This has bothered me since late beta and is becoming more and more of an issue (imo) as of late. I don't have solution for it because there really isn't one but I want to see what peoples thoughts are.

My outfit is smaller in size compared to most. We typically run about a half a platoon or so. We are finding it difficult to find a solid role for us in the game that isn't boring and doesn't involve getting steamrolled. This is becoming more and more difficult as time goes on. Huge outfits are able to put 100 or more people or more on an objective and essentially win with numbers in almost all fights. We are able to hold off, but it's simply a matter of time until we are struck down due to sheer numbers.

Smaller outfits are finding that they have to disband and join larger outfits if they want to even have fun, causing them to lose their own identity and be absorbed into massive teams because there are no recruits left to take. For me community is more important to a game than the game itself, hence why I've been doing this all these years.

Is having one massive outfit per empire what the developers intended? Is spam inviting every no outfit person in the game really a viable recruiting effort? How many of these people even know what they are joining?

What is everyones thoughts on this issue?

[Fab]

I agree with that obviously, smaller structures have no chances with the current state of the game.

My Outfit can pull out 2 platoons during our operations, and we manage to do amasing stuff, but in a normal day to day fight, with less than a platoon, there is nothing you can do against a bigger force.
That's how the game works now.. I really don't see how to make it better. And I find it sad.

[HiroshiChugi]

Well i know that on my server, there is one outfit that EVERYONE knows about; *****. They constantly spam invites and have even tried to invite people from the outfit I'm in, if I'm not mistaken. I am in teh 2nd biggest outfit on the server (The First Cavalry Division) and people don't even say anything about us. It's always about *****. I fear that we may soon have no choice but to dissolve into *****, even though our leader will have no part of it. In my opinion, outfits SHOULD have size limits, and possibly have to pay money to increase the capacity of that outfit even.

[Infernalis]

Seeing as you can indefinitely respawn and the lack of real defenses then yes, the side with the bigger numbers will always prevail unless there's a big difference in skill.

[Fab]

Well i know that on my server, there is one outfit that EVERYONE knows about; *****. They constantly spam invites and have even tried to invite people from the outfit I'm in, if I'm not mistaken. I am in teh 2nd biggest outfit on the server (The First Cavalry Division) and people don't even say anything about us. It's always about *****. I fear that we may soon have no choice but to dissolve into *****, even though our leader will have no part of it. In my opinion, outfits SHOULD have size limits, and possibly have to pay money to increase the capacity of that outfit even.

These guys sound like a zerg outfit, not even asking to be on TS or Mumble?
I mean if the goal of the outfit is to transform a blue zerg into a green zerg, there is really no point..

What is REALLY powerfull, is 200 guys actually working together, fighting for the same strategical goal, and THAT is really powerfull. A zerg is just a zerg. People join an Outfit for the tactical aspects I guess, not for the cool or [Whatever] tag.

[HiroshiChugi]

These guys sound like a zerg outfit, not even asking to be on TS or Mumble?
I mean if the goal of the outfit is to transform a blue zerg into a green zerg, there is really no point..

What is REALLY powerfull, is 200 guys actually working together, fighting for the same strategical goal, and THAT is really powerfull. A zerg is just a zerg. People join an Outfit for the tactical aspects I guess, not for the cool or [Whatever] tag.

well the outfit I'm in looks down on ****, MAJORLY. Just because of the simple fact that they don't require Teamspeak, Radcall, or Mumble. They just zerg abd zerg and zerg all day long. And when they are trying to cap a base and it looks even in the SLIGHTEST bit like they won't win it, they leave to a DIFFERENT continent, not to a different OBJ or base, but a different CONTINENT. I wish they would just disband...

EDIT: they need this: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=banhammer&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=banhammer&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=4E8AEC93705152C74C07A57BA3DB6CFEA6DB93F0&selectedIndex=94

[ringring]

Isn't it intrinsic within the size of the continent population? I mean, cont pop has scaled up from PS1 (by 3-4) and therefore shouldn't the active outfits?

It's ironic. If outfits want an identity they have to grow to the point to which individual identity is lost.

Outcasters generally roll with several squads, maybe 30 people on an average day maximum. We generally achieve stuff, but I'd say we don't have the impact that we would in PS1 with those numbers (to be expectd).

What we have started to do over the past few weeks is cooperate with other outfits, Rffnex and BMC.

We organise our ts servers so that a couple of people from each outfit can communicate and we coordinate our attacks.

I would like to see a PS2 that had outfits working together in alliances and retaining their identity than outfits breaking up and forming a mega-outfit.

[Hmr85]

Quality over Quantity. That is all I have to say about it.

[Storn]

As I am on a smaller server small teams/outfits are still effective but have to be mindful of the zerg; however, the side with most people (VS) seems to steam roll. I guess this works into what most are saying which if you don’t have the numbers your a speed bump. The access that attackers have to facilities doesn’t help. Not sure what can be done :(

[HiroshiChugi]

Quality over Quantity. That is all I have to say about it.

i say this with EVERYTHING! Literally :P

[Hamma]

I said not to mentions specific outfits... fail on post #3 :lol:

[HiroshiChugi]

I said not to mentions specific outfits... fail on post #3 :lol:

i couldnt help it, they just don't know how to run themselves lol

[Whiteagle]

Well i know that on my server, there is one outfit that EVERYONE knows about; ****. They constantly spam invites and have even tried to invite people from the outfit I'm in, if I'm not mistaken. I am in teh 2nd biggest outfit on the server (The First Cavalry Division) and people don't even say anything about us. It's always about ****. I fear that we may soon have no choice but to dissolve into ****, even though our leader will have no part of it. In my opinion, outfits SHOULD have size limits, and possibly have to pay money to increase the capacity of that outfit even.
Ugh, shame to hear that man...

We smaller Outfits on the Red side of Waterson don't have that big of problem, even though we've got TotalBiscuit's Let the Brit Drop AND Angry Joe's Angry Army...

I think this really boils down to base defensibility, right now it's mostly who brings the most numbers that wins.

Take a base with any kind of defensibility against vehicles, like Raven's Landing on Amerish.
The other night, my Outfit The Mobile Infantry [TMI], maybe two open squads worth of people trying to fight a **** zerg rush fell back to Raven's Landing after it was clear we couldn't save Auraxium Firearms Corp.

We held that little base for maybe an hour and a half... and it, was, AWESOME!

At one point we were the only Hex the TR held, so every Smurf in Southern Amerish was banging at our doorstep!

By the time they finally gotten a tank rush together to keep us Spawn Camped, our Zerg had been left alone enought to recap the two hexes next to our Warpgate.

[ringring]

A couple of other things I'd like to add.

Some of the (possible) changes I have been banging on about would help smaller outfits, e.g. engineering deployables and minefields which with other changes make outposts and bases more defensible.

And it's true, at present once the zerg gets moving you are nothing but a small bump in the road.

The second thing is that Higby has said in the past that he want to make or maintain space for spec ops type activities to still have a role. Now, given that spec ops isn't suitable for the larger 100+ outfits then I'd assume that Higby is open to good suggestions on improvements that might be made. :)

[Beerbeer]

The problem is server population.

Merging servers would provide for more smaller platoon level action on the periphery of the the main zerg and brighten up activity on multiple continents.

Simple solution.

[Bardock]

Sadly it seems strategy and teamplay is dead in PS2, the zerg rules all.

Although I have pulled off some great maneuvers together with my small outfit ("Beltain" on Miller), we always end up getting stomped on by the giant zerg boot at some point unless we take a huge stroll around it, which we usually try to do.
(Wrote a long ramble here that generally says the game is broken, but deleted it because I don't want to go too much off topic).

Bottom line: IMO PS2 in its current iteration clearly favours great numbers; zerg or be zerged. Prepare to be assimilated.

[ringring]

The problem is server population.

Merging servers would provide for more smaller platoon level action on the periphery of the the main zerg and brighten up activity on multiple continents.

Simple solution.
I'd disagree.
This problem occurs on poplocked continents as well as those not.

[HiroshiChugi]

exactly my point about **** and outfits just like them. they need to learn actual skill, not zerg tactics -__-"

[Fab]

The problem is server population.

Merging servers would provide for more smaller platoon level action on the periphery of the the main zerg and brighten up activity on multiple continents.

Simple solution.

Problem is also that you cannot know where is the friendly zerg. So you cannot try to act on the periphery of it.
I hope they'll add a way to know where are the friendly forces on the map, so you can at least try to contribute in a different way than just joining them.

[DirtyBird]

I always thought that the devs goal was to eventually just have massive outfits fighting each other.
Imagine if they could eventually have these outfits with 666 representatives each starting at their warp gates on a neutralized continent.
They battle it out until there is either one clear winner or a time limit is reached.
All streamed live to those who are willing to fork out for a PPV.
Anything for a $.

There is no room for smaller outfits in that model.

We dont suffer from it as much on Briggs.
We seem to have a lot of very small outfits who are not so much interested in the objectives but farming kills.
To be fair there probably isnt a great deal else for them in the game anyway, even if there was it probably wouldnt change anything for some of them.

I've seen /orders get used a bit for recruitment seeing as that functionality is easier to get that some basic upgrades.

I have no idea how the massive outfits run but is it safe to say that their new recruits are there simply as a controlled zerg?
No real community early on but a zerg you can direct which will in turn pick up others along the way.
In the end just overwhelming points with pure numbers.
Perhaps closer well known members go off and do something a little more tactical or entertaining elsewhere while the zerg rolls.

It could end up being very limited servers with half a dozen continents where the outfits are so large that there is only a few on each faction but they basically are the factions.
There would be enough of them to fill each continent.

[Crator]

exactly my point about **** and outfits just like them. they need to learn actual skill, not zerg tactics -__-"

How come? There's nothing forcing them to do so... In fact it's more beneficial for everyone to zerg currently. Base defensibility changes along with more effective engineering deployables should help though.

[Oroshi]

I know where your coming from Hamma, I run a small outfit my self, and find we are going down in numbers. I fail to see why 'Outfits' have been so neglected by SOE in a team game, surely it should have been a core feature, not some tack on addition with the promise of an Outfit expansion with in the next 12 months.

They should have included an in game section that allowed Outfits to advertise, and be searchable, not everyone checks forums, and spam invites don't normally yield good long term members, or a community feel.

There is so much they should have included at launch with PS2, for example:

Outfit decals, even if it was some sort of rudimentary system to make them, though being able to upload your own would be great. It would have allowed for outfits to be identified in the field, by simply added two decal slot on vehicles, they would have been room for people to display their outfit colors and personalize their vehicle of choice at the same time.
A better Outfit page would have worked too, with the MOTD, then separate slots for Outfit website, and VOIP of choice.


There again even if they had provided it, smaller outfit and non-zergfit, are not where the players are, due to the way the game works, by design or fault, its currently about the zerg, so your stuck either blending into it, or off else where doing stuff to help the empire as a whole, and not being noticed.

My Outfit is good at what we do, we have a very good understanding of the map, and the flow of the battles, and can quickly resolve the fight. The number of old style Tech Plant fights we ending in a few minutes of getting there is high, yet is goes unnoticed.

We too have started the thoughts of disbanding, and joining a larger outfit, so we have more people to play with.

[Dragonskin]

I think this game is designed for large outfits.. if you make a map that can hold 2,000 players then it just breeds large outfits to handle other large outfits. Not all large outfits are zergs though. 666th Devil Dogs are a large outfit, but they are very tactical using combined arms and Teamspeak. Ghosts of the Revolution and Azure Twilight are both large guilds that use similar command structures,tactics and teamspeak. I think people see large outfits and assume that most of them are zergs.

Part of the problem is that these large outfits are finding that it is a numbers game to a degree and to coupe with that the fastest way to combat other larger outfits is to recruit en masse.

It's an issue that has plagued large scale RvR MMORPGs since DAoC... how do you make large scale PvP events without creating the zerg mentality? I don't think it's something you can really avoid if you have large scale battles as your core design for the game.

I think that is partially why people would like to see more infantry centric objectives because it gives smaller outfits a chance to be on level ground through holding down choke points and possibly using better tactics to pin down larger outfits.

[Javelin]

Being from a small outfit myself, a lot of what we do comes from just riding the "outskirts" of the zerg. We have to be very careful picking our next objective so we don't get crushed.

I don't think there is a real game mechanic that's ever been implemented in any game that stops one of human beings most basic instinct of grouping up. That said having more ground to fight over will make those groups spread thinner, so as we get more continents options for smaller outfits will get better IMO.

[Hmr85]

There is always a place for small to medium size outfits even in PS2. AA batteries, Flanking the zerg force decimating one side of it. Capping strategic bases of value ultimately pushing the zerg where you want it to go. Ruses essentially.. There is plenty of things you can do.

Outfit X has 150 members in it and I like to consider us a medium size outfit. We are not as big as some of the other outfits on Connery but I like to think we make up for it with Quality skilled players in the outfit that allow us to compete with some of the bigger zergfits. We run with 2 to 3 squads every night for the most part sometimes more.

[Beerbeer]

Well, right now there's one gigantic blob and not much else.

When it was packed, you could pick your fights amongst a variety of fights, of different intensity and population.

It may not be the only solution, but the current situation is all or nothing. Zerg or emptiness.

[belch]

The zerg is an effective tactic.

Witness:

Korean War

Facing a zerg head on, or even hunkered down, is not going to have any different result than what has been demonstrated time and time again in history. One of the things that works as a weakness, is the lack of real time command and control with such a large element. If, for instance, several factional outfits decided to do what actual unit's in an army would do...establish and coordinate defensive lines, determine priority targets for heavy ground and air assets, and use flanking elements to disrupt and isloate the zerg...I dunno. It's something I would love to see.

Problem is, with those smaller outfits, you will have a hard time keeping real time command and control. Noone wants to listen to some other guy in game. Developing and executing startegic campaigns is a very real possibility...to include developing operational plans for the inevitable zerg surge. It requires a lot of factional cooperation on the server, and THAT I just don't see happening.

[AnamNantom]

What is an outfit?

"Informal An association of persons, especially a military unit or a business organization."

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outfit

My idea of an outfit is that it's like a US military division. I do think the idea is that you are to join up and coordinate with the rest of the faction (empire for you new to PS2) in order to take over land. We could probably use some more tools to facilitate or at least educate people on how to coordinate better.

The problem is that the "zerg" (rest of the factlion) won't always agree with each other and the really big issue that I think you and I (in my smaller current outfit) are seeing is that people do not stay around and defend because they are chasing the cert thirst in a reactionary way.

It truly does become a cat and mouse game. Too much offense, not enough defense. Too much re-action, not enough pre-thought action. Personally, I do not mind sitting around defending a point in order to prevent our resources from being cut off. It's a forward thinking non-reactive strategy. You become the thermostat, not the thermometer, in the temperature of battle.

Most people are not so patient and most outfit leaders don't want want their troops getting bored, so we see a lot of running in circles. I recently lead a random public squad and I felt this pressure internally, not from the reactions of my squad members, but in my thoughts, I wanted to give these guys a good fight but also do what was best for the Vanu Sovereignty.

It may be advisable to reward defenders more. Yet, it is upon the outfit, platoon, and squad leaders to balance what's good for their faction with that's fun for the moment. This is emergent sandbox gameplay and I would presume that we don't want any artificial silly defense reward when in the mind of the strategic, their is honor for holding the defense.

What I propose is rewarding the end game objective a bit more. Make it advantageous to work toward the final goal of a continent lock (or even planetary lock). Give people a bit more visual fluff (patches, player stats, etc) and maybe up or vary the rewards besides the 10% reduction on price of infantry, vehicle items.


TLDR:

It's up to the players to balance between defense and offense in an emergent sandbox style of gameplay. Do we need artificial means to accomplish balance? Do we need more tools to help people understand the strategies that help the entire faction? Do we need to reward the end-game more so that the rest of the faction aids the smaller outfits?

[Mavvvy]

Yeah been going through similar issues with the small outfit I run with. So we decided to join one of the huge ones. We were then quickly disappointed by what we experianced, little more then the actual zerg in terms of utilising strategy/tactics.

So we left and reformed ourselves again and mainly carry out area denial for esf's and counter armour jazz. I suppose you gotta just find your niche.

[SGTHACK]

The zerg has taken over. My friend and I only get to play a couple of hours a week. So we never get an invite to join anything. We have been playing since early beta. What we are seeing is, PS2 turning into the "zerg wins". There is no answer to this. This will be the state of the game. Now the YouTubers....sad.

[Whiteagle]

I know where your coming from Hamma, I run a small outfit my self, and find we are going down in numbers. I fail to see why 'Outfits' have been so neglected by SOE in a team game, surely it should have been a core feature, not some tack on addition with the promise of an Outfit expansion with in the next 12 months.

They should have included an in game section that allowed Outfits to advertise, and be searchable, not everyone checks forums, and spam invites don't normally yield good long term members, or a community feel.

There is so much they should have included at launch with PS2, for example:

Outfit decals, even if it was some sort of rudimentary system to make them, though being able to upload your own would be great. It would have allowed for outfits to be identified in the field, by simply added two decal slot on vehicles, they would have been room for people to display their outfit colors and personalize their vehicle of choice at the same time.
A better Outfit page would have worked too, with the MOTD, then separate slots for Outfit website, and VOIP of choice.


There again even if they had provided it, smaller outfit and non-zergfit, are not where the players are, due to the way the game works, by design or fault, its currently about the zerg, so your stuck either blending into it, or off else where doing stuff to help the empire as a whole, and not being noticed.

My Outfit is good at what we do, we have a very good understanding of the map, and the flow of the battles, and can quickly resolve the fight. The number of old style Tech Plant fights we ending in a few minutes of getting there is high, yet is goes unnoticed.

We too have started the thoughts of disbanding, and joining a larger outfit, so we have more people to play with.
Indeed, a lot more can be done for Outfits out of SOE...

...Too bad free MMOs just want to screw guilds over...

[Aaron]

Quantum Dawn is actually closing recruitment sometime today to prevent something like this from happening. Recruit too many and no one will know no one. It would be a zergfit with no tactics.

Now, the problem. Planetside 2 heavily rewards numbers as a means to victory. You don't necessarily need tactics to take any base or outpost. However, if the game design required tactics (more advanced tactics) as a means to victory, then this might make numbers less relevant. As of right now, the generators and critical points of a base are like open wounds ready to be infected.

I believe the solution to the problem can be found in the design of bases and outposts.

[belch]

You know, with 'units' being specific to servers, there is absolutely no reason why they should not be actively talking to each other, developing operational plans. It is, after all, a persistent battle space. Just as an example...establish key areas specific to outfits. Nothing wrong with sharing battle space, but as near as I can tell, it's just a grab bag of 'lets fight guys here'.

Even the smaller outfits could find their role, just as a BDE within a Division...a Battalion within a Brigade...a Company within a Battalion...a Platoon within a Company...

All of those elements, and even further down, have a role...a mission. None of those elements is able to operate at full potential without coordiantion. Even the bigger outfits.

[SGTHACK]

Don't get me wrong, we still have a great time playing. It is just sad to see our great game turning into the mindless BF3 experience. Professional gamers showing off their skills, steam rolling over the people who are the core of the game. Then laughing when people quit.....

[Hamma]

Ive removed references to specific outfits, I don't want this to become some kind of outfit argument about one specific outfit or another.. please do not reference specific outfits.

[belch]

I was going to mention YOUR outfit actually, Hamma. Looking very snazzy today, I must say. :p

[SGTHACK]

Outfit size limit? Specify "zerg" servers? What ever the answer may be, SOE will have to reconize the problem to deal with it. As long as they are making money, will they care?

[Bear]

I don't think the problem is outfit size but rather an effective way for smaller groups to communicate. In my opinion command chat is too easily available and the vast majority of people just ignore it. I'd like to see SOE implement some type of way for smaller squads to combine their efforts. Make it available ONLY after the groups have somehow linked. Maybe put something in the game that allows one squad to invite other squads, not in a platoon but in some form of objective communication portal.

Challenge is, there's far too many master strategists in this game. The minute you say "move to X" someone is going to say "I think we should...."

[belch]

Hey, at least you're seeing some semblance of strategy. For the TR on my server, strategy appears to be limited to 'to the Crown!!!!'.

ugh...

[SGTHACK]

I never played PS1. Did it ever have this problem? If so how was it delt with?

[ringring]

I never played PS1. Did it ever have this problem? If so how was it delt with?
It didn't have this problem.


Bases were defensible.
Engineers could lay more mines - which doubled as anti armour and anti-personel.
AMS had an invisibility bubble - which helps the smaller force and isn't necessary on a larger force.
Buildings had doors and windows, ie tanks spam couldn't happen.
The previous base took longer to hack, which means if you were kicked out of a base you could retreat to the next one and have time to set up a defensive position before the enemy arrived.
ttk was slower therefore it was easier to hold positions.


In PS1 the best and most tactical outfits were often the ones that restricted their numbers.

[Tatwi]

I agree, Hamma. Back in Sept. I made a forum post and blog entry called, in part, Steamrollside, because of this issue. It frustrated the hell out of me in beta to watch both the NC and the VS push the TR to the warpgate every day, rather than fight each other. There was nothing the TR could against massive zergs on the east and west side of the map; we were simply rolled over at every base, even when we crammed 30 or people into a meaningless outpost - 100+ people, with tanks, libs, and esfs take NS Refinery.... Sadly, this concept carried through to live as the dominant way to play the game.

Strangely the most fun I had in PS2 was in beta when the gal was a spawn point and we could take any base at any time. I always thought the "front line" talk was a bunch of crap. Why have the other bases if you're going to fight at the middle swath of them the vast majority of the time? They should have just made it so all bases/outposts/locations need 3 people to flip the point and each base gave a better bonus than the lolresources that no one cares about.

As for the zergfits themselves, I had to make my own guild just eliminate the spam invites on those rare occasions that I bother playing. They are almost as bad as the medic rez request pop ups - no idiot, I don't want you to rez me in the middle of a fire fight so I can be killed instantly again, fuck off already... They need an auto-block for that crap... Anyhow, I ran with *a large guild* in beta, which was amusing for *the leader's* antics, but the game play was little more than a spastic over use of /suicide travel to answer all threats with superior numbers and "the right tool for the job" every single time. Sure it's effective at "winning", but it's boring and kind of lame, because you know you're going to win. Also, there were very few times when just one or two squads were told to hold a place, likely because it was damned near impossible to actually do so, save for biolabs, the crown, and vanu archives. In the end, I decided that the chaotic jumping around from place to place game play, combined with the zero charisma *leader* wannabe squad leaders were not my idea of fun. I'd rather play with a handful of people doing something that feels more linear and meaningful.

Planetside 2 isn't actually fun to play. The zergwaves are a large part of that.

Stew360 road my ass once in beta, because I wouldn't get out of a turret to let him and his two buddies shoot me. However, by staying in that turret I not only destroyed their Gal (or lib?) but 4 other air vehicles and chased away a few others as well. We held Mao. I used "common sense" when it came to the enemies near me, but more importantly, I sat in that turret and did my job to help defend the base as part of the overall TR team. It was not a huge force that pushed on us and the battle could have gone either way... And it was something fun that I remember. That simply does not seem to happen on Matherson, where bases are either empty or being rolled over by 100+ attackers and perhaps 5 to 10 defenders.

The way people are playing PS2 sure isn't helping to make up for the shortcomings of the game itself.


Removed outfit specific references.

[Aveox]

As outfit leader of a small outfit I can definately agree that this is a problem. We're still hanging in there though and hoping that things will change, but it is very clear that zerging is currently the way to go in this game.

I think the major issue is that there are no side objectives in PS2. There are no NTU silo's to fill, no bases to drain, no lattice to cut, no generators to keep down and no mods or LLU's to run. This was typical small outfit stuff that my outfit was doing in support of the zerg in PS1. Most of it would be responded to by similar small and focused outfits. PS2 has simplified things so much that this has been lost and the result is nothing but zerging.

And as others have said already: I am wondering what the devs had in mind when they thought about outfits in PS2. There's no outfit decals, you cannot even display your full outfit name and outfit management tools are spotty at best. You can be proud of your outfit as much as you want, but you'll be just another random 4-letter tag in the zerg, which is a shame.

[Sleepy]

PS2 lacks several components (not an exhaustive list - there are more) which curtail smaller groups or outfits from feeling more effective:

1) Defensibility. Smaller outfits in PS1 could hold towers and bases from moderately greater numbers, as well as carry out Generator holds, etc.. Defense is where small outfits should most easily find a niche, but PS2's base design offers few killzones; no doors; no swathes of infantry-only areas (underground or otherwise) where vehicles cannot camp and one shot.

2) Defense xp. Yes, the 15% is there supposedly, but it's not enough to encourage it, IMO. Especially given Point #1, where most people don't want to simply be farmed when outnumbered - adding more significant rewards would help this a slight bit.

3) Strategic Meta. In the absence of a Lattice or a game system which might funnel Empires to more predictable areas to conquer, it's tough to know where to set up a Defense - since all hexes can be capped at any time, you could be quite bored awaiting that assault for an hour. Even improving Empire-chat tools might assist in this, as players could report sightings of Enemy movement. All we have is /yell.

As a smallish outfit, you can of course be on Offense as well, but the quick-flipping of territories (5 mins after you cap, it's back to the other side already) and absent Metagame (to feel like it's made a difference), even the Big Outfits will grow bored as well.

[SGTHACK]

Sorry, but PS1 sounds like more fun for the thinking player. Thank you "ringring".

[Whiteagle]

I believe the solution to the problem can be found in the design of bases and outposts.
Agreed.
You know, with 'units' being specific to servers, there is absolutely no reason why they should not be actively talking to each other, developing operational plans. It is, after all, a persistent battle space. Just as an example...establish key areas specific to outfits. Nothing wrong with sharing battle space, but as near as I can tell, it's just a grab bag of 'lets fight guys here'.

Even the smaller outfits could find their role, just as a BDE within a Division...a Battalion within a Brigade...a Company within a Battalion...a Platoon within a Company...

All of those elements, and even further down, have a role...a mission. None of those elements is able to operate at full potential without coordiantion. Even the bigger outfits.
Well some of us have been trying to strengthen inter-Outfit coordination, but that kind of networking isn't done at the drop of a hat.

[Asp]

I don't think the problem is outfit size but rather an effective way for smaller groups to communicate.


This, quite frankly is key.. It's a massive FPS game, you can't go around artificially limiting people's ability to coordinate or gather up troops under the same banner.. Even if you made it no platoons and ten man squads only, some Outfits (despite the logistical issues) would find a way to coordinate 15 individual squads and you're back to square one again..

Large outfits are going to exist, best find ways to adapt, because they're not going anywhere.. Ultimately this is more an issue with SOE not really giving us the tools to coordinate smaller groups on a larger scale right out of the box. They need to clean up their squad/platoon interface (which is mildly broken at the moment) so it works correctly, and allow Outfits to combine into Alliances, and develop the player tools to support that properly. It's not a big $$$ generator like putting out new weapons or camos, but they devs need to address this as some point.

Tactics are important, but only go so far against a horde in a game like PS2; being able to coordinate smaller groups together would be a big step.

[belch]

Well some of us have been trying to strengthen inter-Outfit coordination, but that kind of networking isn't done at the drop of a hat.

If they ever do allow server transfers, I'll make sure to hit you up.

[Captain1nsaneo]

My gut is telling me this is a symptom of perpetual 3 way fights. I'm not sure why it's telling me that and it would probably take me a while to dig the reason up but that's what my gut is telling me.

[ringring]

This, quite frankly is key.. It's a massive FPS game, you can't go around artificially limiting people's ability to coordinate or gather up troops under the same banner.. Even if you made it no platoons and ten man squads only, some Outfits (despite the logistical issues) would find a way to coordinate 15 individual squads and you're back to square one again..

Large outfits are going to exist, best find ways to adapt, because they're not going anywhere.. Ultimately this is more an issue with SOE not really giving us the tools to coordinate smaller groups on a larger scale right out of the box. They need to clean up their squad/platoon interface (which is mildly broken at the moment) so it works correctly, and allow Outfits to combine into Alliances, and develop the player tools to support that properly. It's not a big $$$ generator like putting out new weapons or camos, but they devs need to address this as some point.

Tactics are important, but only go so far against a horde in a game like PS2; being able to coordinate smaller groups together would be a big step.
We don't need SOE to do anything for this to happen.

Dragonwolves have been around for quite a while and I'd expect you know other similarly sized outfits on your server. Get in touch and set up a cross-outfit ts whisper.

You don't have to go so far as to integrate other outfits in your squad, just pass on info like where your platoon is, where you are attacking, when you need help or can provide help to them ... and so on.

I think the areas where we def. do need SOE assistance is on base defensibility etc.

[Whiteagle]

If they ever do allow server transfers, I'll make sure to hit you up.
Hell there was already a site (http://www.terran-republic.com), I'm just directing people to it.

[Hamma]

I think many people have touched on many items in this thread. It seems to me there are a large variety of problems.

Lack of Tools: There is no easy way to coordinate multiple Outfits. As a result, outfits end up folding into huge outfits or just giving up.
Territory Adjacency: It's impossible to do any covert actions, something you could somewhat do in PlanetSide 1. You are stuck to the front lines or stuck having to weave your way between massive zergs. You can't deny tech to someone other than taking a base for example.
Viable Spawns: Sunderer is good and all, but it's not even remotely covert. The Galaxy was overpowered as an all encompassing AMS but I'd love to see it come back in a more restricted manner.
Lack of defensive bonuses: We used to get more of a benefit from defending. Now, there IS a benefit now but it's not well communicated. Things like setting up CE in a courtyard before moving on were common place in PS1 - now the zerg completely abandons bases and moves on making little attempt at defense.

It boils down to the fact no small(ish) outfit is able to compete or do anything except roll along side the Zerg. Which is a viable tactic don't get me wrong.. but there should be other options for teams that want to operate differently.

[SGTHACK]

Why don't outfits leave troops behind for base defence? I see this all of the time. An area steamrolled, outfit moves out, minutes later, area re-captured.

[Dragonskin]

How do you guys feel about removing the adjacency restrictions? Meaning that you could allow small groups to take territories without adjacency to their empire. If you could do that then you would force the zerg to spread out and defend bases if you want to turn the continent your color to get the bonuses associated with it.. you would have to have people defending small bases to accomplish that.

The flip side is doing that would also make it really hard to accomplish a continent lock.. so the only times continents will likely flip is late night early morning when one faction can simply over power the low population.

[SGTHACK]

I would volunteer to be in a defence platoon for an outfit. To be moved into an area after a major fight to hold the line.

[PoisonTaco]

Maybe things will change when we get our 4th or 5th continent and we have the locks happening. Once the global lattice system is in we'll usually have two empires fighting over a map and one zerg just blitzing through is not going to take a lot of territory. I think once we have more maps and those locks the game will be very different. There will be a real front line and smaller outfits will have a lot more value.

In order to take or hold a continent you're going to need to hold all the territory, not a single base. But hey who knows what that will look like. I still think that's the best thing SOE can do to make this a game about strategy and less zerg tactics.

We need those next three continents asap. When SOE posts their 6 month plan and asks us what to prioritize, we have to go in and tell them to get the three new maps in along with a real metagame.

[Dragonskin]

Why don't outfits leave troops behind for base defence? I see this all of the time. An area steamrolled, outfit moves out, minutes later, area re-captured.

Because base flipping generates the large EXP flashes across the screen that gives players the instant gratification they are looking for. Defenese requires people to attack for a longer period of time without simply moving to another base to take and you don't get any exp when the screen flashes that you still own the objective.. discouraging zerglings from staying... I routinely hear people complain that defense ticks don't give exp so they aren't worth the time.

Back when you saw defense ticks in beta.. like you see capture ticks.. then people started defending more. Then the problem was also created with people AFKing in defended bases just milking exp.... bottom line people suck and Developers will have their hands full trying to please the masses without creating a easy track for AFKers to get rewards.

[SGTHACK]

I must be different. I play for the fun of combat, not the points.

[PoisonTaco]

Another short term solution would be to make resources more scarce. When a zerg gets rolling they just mass up tanks and go. Perhaps one way to defend against a zerg is while they attack a base you go and take all the small outposts with resources and they run out of steam.

The only time resources matter in this game is when you have nothing on a continent. Resources should matter all the time and going after the enemy's economy should be a valid tactic.

[Whiteagle]

How do you guys feel about removing the adjacency restrictions? Meaning that you could allow small groups to take territories without adjacency to their empire. If you could do that then you would force the zerg to spread out and defend bases if you want to turn the continent your color to get the bonuses associated with it.. you would have to have people defending small bases to accomplish that.

The flip side is doing that would also make it really hard to accomplish a continent lock.. so the only times continents will likely flip is late night early morning when one faction can simply over power the low population.
Eh, it's a mix bagged really...

A single man can cut off Resources and Facility Benifits if he's smart about the adjecent territories he captures, but that's because no one bothers to defend...

...The defensive game is going to need a huge improvement before you can even think about this either way though.

We need those next three continents asap. When SOE posts their 6 month plan and asks us what to prioritize, we have to go in and tell them to get the three new maps in along with a real metagame.
...I don't know man...

If we get three more continents full of indefensible bases, we might still be in the same boat.

...Hears hoping they learned from Amerish, which is the best Continent so far when it comes to defense.

[ringring]

Another short term solution would be to make resources more scarce. When a zerg gets rolling they just mass up tanks and go. Perhaps one way to defend against a zerg is while they attack a base you go and take all the small outposts with resources and they run out of steam.

The only time resources matter in this game is when you have nothing on a continent. Resources should matter all the time and going after the enemy's economy should be a valid tactic.
Well, I know presently resources barely register on the 'things to think about' list when you're playing but I reckon that if people run out of ground vehicle resources and are unable to pull tanks, sundies it will just cause a lot of frustration.

I don't see any real alternative to doing the obvious - make the bases more defensible. (Although spec ops targets like being able remove a tech link would help)

[NewSith]

PS2 lacks several components (not an exhaustive list - there are more) which curtail smaller groups or outfits from feeling more effective:

1) Defensibility. Smaller outfits in PS1 could hold towers and bases from moderately greater numbers, as well as carry out Generator holds, etc.. Defense is where small outfits should most easily find a niche, but PS2's base design offers few killzones; no doors; no swathes of infantry-only areas (underground or otherwise) where vehicles cannot camp and one shot.

2) Defense xp. Yes, the 15% is there supposedly, but it's not enough to encourage it, IMO. Especially given Point #1, where most people don't want to simply be farmed when outnumbered - adding more significant rewards would help this a slight bit.

3) Strategic Meta. In the absence of a Lattice or a game system which might funnel Empires to more predictable areas to conquer, it's tough to know where to set up a Defense - since all hexes can be capped at any time, you could be quite bored awaiting that assault for an hour. Even improving Empire-chat tools might assist in this, as players could report sightings of Enemy movement. All we have is /yell.

As a smallish outfit, you can of course be on Offense as well, but the quick-flipping of territories (5 mins after you cap, it's back to the other side already) and absent Metagame (to feel like it's made a difference), even the Big Outfits will grow bored as well.

Pretty much this, minus one aspect.

@Hamma, I can safely say that there are many smaller outfits that simply cannot shine at all due to base not having any field of occupation for them, and that's valid for many outfits. Some of them were quite famous for being able to hold interlinks against twice the enemy population, "professional" tower farms, and effective backhacking, but now there's not much to do for them, partially because there is no predictability to the fight on a tactical level. From a strategical standpoint, the game is on contra way too predictable and only big outfits can change the tide of battle, without high chance of getting zerged.

Also, check your PM.

[Dragonskin]

Eh, it's a mix bagged really...

A single man can cut off Resources and Facility Benifits if he's smart about the adjecent territories he captures, but that's because no one bothers to defend...

...The defensive game is going to need a huge improvement before you can even think about this either way though.

Right, well for this to matter enough for people to worry about it then resources have to scarce enough to care what is taken. Right now you get resources so fast it doesn't really matter. Facility benefits are nice, but in the end they aren't enough focus either except for the tech plant so you can pull MBTs on the field.

[Bocheezu]

Bases were defensible.
Engineers could lay more mines - which doubled as anti armour and anti-personel.
AMS had an invisibility bubble - which helps the smaller force and isn't necessary on a larger force.
Buildings had doors and windows, ie tanks spam couldn't happen.
The previous base took longer to hack, which means if you were kicked out of a base you could retreat to the next one and have time to set up a defensive position before the enemy arrived.
ttk was slower therefore it was easier to hold positions.


And zerglings couldn't drive tanks. Well, they could drive them, but they couldn't shoot them.

There's been a lot of conversation about lack of defense and how people just cap a base and leave. It's because there is literally no way to defend that base. Lay mines? So you blow up 3-4 tanks. There are 12873013710928 zerg tanks right behind it. You would need just about every player in the area to lay mines for it to be effective and I don't think that many people have the cert.

All those people that complained to no avail about driver/gunner were right. In PS1, MBTs were pretty much outfit-only. You could run a single tank with your buddy, but you wouldn't be very effective. In order to get a big convoy of tanks, you needed an outfit. In this game, you don't need that at all. The zerg is way too powerful and just completely dominates the game.

This is sort of an aside about base defense, but really I feel the lack of base defense is the core of the issue. I feel the addition of the light assault class was stupid. There should not be an infantry class that just completely bypasses defense and jumps over walls. Everyone should have to walk through that outer shield, and that shield should not have a fucking generator 10 meters away from it that will make it go away. In PS1, the generator that made the shield go away was usually buried 2 floors underground. Good luck getting in the courtyard, assholes.

[RykerStruvian]

Defending bases in its current form is really terrible. One reason is that you can't make anywhere near as much resources defending a base as you would typically make when on the offensive. I went from 40 something flash grenades and c4 charges on my light assault character to zero after a night of playing defense.

The next day, I was strictly on offense and now I'm restocked and maxed out once again. Aside from that and the other already explained reasons, defending needs to be looked over.

As for the topic regarding outfits, I think the size of the outfit isn't the issue as much as it is how people use them. You just need to organize and enforce particular methods in regards to how2play in a large-scale setting with multiple units. For instance, dedicate particular squads to air, others to ground, and give them their specialized objectives. This makes them more efficient and less 'zergy'.

[maradine]

My outfit runs one squad. We'd like to be bigger, but we generally don't invite people we don't know personally (like, can shake a hand on a regular basis). As a result, we field 6-10 on most nights.

I have to admit, on many nights, it's hard to find something optimal for the team. We're not large enough to crack the zerg, but we're wasted on sweeping the undefended stretches the zerg ignores. Occasionally we bump into a similarly-sized NC or TR group at an objective, and then we tend to party up and down Auraxis, taking and giving ground until someone has to log. Those are good nights.

We've dabbled in application-specific work, ie, providing a dedicated anti-aircraft pit, or running vehicle resupply and repair. These are entertaining sub tasks, but communicating with the zerg that these services are available is largely fruitless.

I don't want to make it sound grim; we definitely enjoy our few hours a week. I do think higher pops would help things immensely, though. Is this what we get for consciously avoiding the big outfit West server? Perhaps. I suspect, if the pop trends continue, we'll have the opportunity to rectify that.

[Ghoest9]

The problem is server population.

Merging servers would provide for more smaller platoon level action on the periphery of the the main zerg and brighten up activity on multiple continents.

Simple solution.

This doesnt doesnt pass even the briefest of common sense analysis.

1 Servers are dominated by giant outfits.
2 Forcing many of these giant outfits together on one server will result more fights for small out?
3 Does not compute.

[Beerbeer]

All these suggestions sound nice, but so long as the population is low, there will always be just one blob with little else.

Base defense, lattice, etc. It really won't matter if smaller outfits can defend these better if there's no one to defend them against other than the one big blob.

Just needs more people playing and I bet there will be a healthy mix of battle sizes all over the place, including that one giant blob. Smaller outfits will have many more opportunities to strike out along tangents from the blob and actually see defenders.

[Sledgecrushr]

I invite everyone to watch Sujieun in his stream and the small outfit he is with is incredibly effective. I think a lot of us could learn from the tactics that they employ in small outfit play.

[NewSith]

All these suggestions sound nice, but so long as the population is low, there will always be just one blob with little else.

Base defense, lattice, etc. It really won't matter if smaller outfits can defend these better if there's no one to defend them against other than the one big blob.

Just needs more people playing and I bet there will be a healthy mix of battle sizes all over the place, including that one giant blob. Smaller outfits will have many more opportunities to strike out along tangents from the blob and actually see defenders.

With attack being more beneficial than defense, it simply doesn't work that way.

[Ghoest9]

What we are rapidly approaching is a game where
-outfit air armadas will be 99+% of the fight
-tanks will serve no purpose
-infantry will just be teams in to clean buildings


Its a shift that has just started this week. But its going to happen because its so effective as a plan. Pretty much everything but biolabs can be dominated simply with an organized air armada.

[james]

I'm in one of the largest outfits in the game, so i may be bias on this. On ops nights we may run upwards of 300 guys.

But i don't feel large outfits are the problem, its more the game. As the game currently works, to take a continent most times you zerg across it with 60% or more of the population. Do to the lower population cap, 100+ people can majorly change population and bring the zerg over.
I does seem that the originally idea was to have the huge outfits all on one server, and i know some of them tried. It just didn't end up that way.
There is always a place for smaller outfits. Do to the smaller size you may be able to move troops faster, and help win battles.

To the common person we look like a zerg, but we are far more organized. If anyone was on our TS during ops you could see we are an army not a zerg.

[robocpf1]

From the other side of the fence - as the leader of a large outfit - we want more tactical stuff, too. We want more metagame and strategy. Every single post we see paints us as "zergfits" and we don't have any way to stop that. No matter what we do, how we explain our tactics or our organization, people will just say "yeah, but you've got 150 people, you're just zerging".

Enclave's got 12 independent squads taking different objectives simultaneously, people call that zerging.

GOTR uses three different divisions, controlling air, land, and buildings at the same time, and people call that zerging.

What do we have to do to stop being labeled as zergfits? We want to show the rest of the game we aren't just throwing 150 people at a door and steamrolling it because of our numbers. Our leaders and officers put a lot of time into training and coordination, but nobody sees any of that - they just see "zerg".

So by all means, put as much strategy and tactics and metagame into PS2 as you want, we are ALL for it. We loved that about PS1. The large outfits aren't fighting you guys on this, we want it as much as you do, for sure. It lets us distance ourselves from the outfits that actually do just put down a waypoint and say "All 150 of you, go there".

And the sad part is, that's still a really effective push because of the way PS2 is designed. We want to prove we're better than the actual zergfits, but we can't, because both our strategies and the rush work fine.

Lattice, killing base adjacency, more benefits to deny, more resources to deny, all of that. I have a spec ops division that has almost nothing to do in game anymore. In PS1 the were drawing off large portions of the population, dropping the interlink generators to kill radar, sitting in the air in Phantasms giving me up-to-the-minute intel on other large outfit movement. All of that's gone now, it's just taking territory and killing more of the enemy than they kill of you.

Small outfits are frustrated because they don't see anything for them to accomplish, they can't find a niche where they're effective.

Large outfits are frustrated because our accomplishments are tainted for the sole reason that we're large, and the perception is we just zerg everything.

Both of those need to change for this game to continue to succeed.

[SGTHACK]

I see doom and gloom for this game. In beta, the fights were spectacular between small and large units. Now we have nothing but zergs and low populated continents with nothing. SOE will try events to get interest back. Sad.....

[Oroshi]

To me it seems to be the reward mechanic, all those big XP deposits, outshine the lots of small one. Then on top of that farmable spawn rooms, that keep popping out fresh XP, and you don't need to get out of your vehicle of choice. These form the zerg, add world population bonus, making there no point to playing on a low faction pop continent.

I would add these features in to give bonus to people doing things in smaller numbers.

Population XP bonus should be based on continent, and much more noticeable, encouraging a spread of population across the continents. This would reduce the Zerg size.

Reduce the bases cap XP, during the last double XP weekend when it did not effect base cap XP, I saw more fights, and less Zerging. Also limit the base cap XP verse region population, get too many people, then the amount of XP received drops, have far too many then no XP if given for capping the base.

Say when attack a small outpost, the ideal amount is 50 people, over that the XP per person for capping goes down, if it was to reach 100 people attacking, they don't get XP at all for the cap. Does not force the Zerg to split up, does how ever make them think if I follow all these people I'll get no XP.

Added in additional objectives, I would remove the resource bonus away from the capture nodes, and added in new targets, that need to be defended to keep your resources coming in. These new targets would always be attack-able, no mater how far from the front lines they are. Basically they represent the empire logistics.

Imagine a resource silo, that fills up with resources say air, when its full it starts to give out air resources to your empire members, a hostile force could raid and steal these resources, and added them to their own empire's, and you'ld lose yours till it refills again. You give it a multiple step process so a team has to do it, 3 to 4 steps would do it, while they are emptying the silo they can not fight, so they would need some guards. While under attack it would flash and allow people to respond to it. The Zerg could be capping territory to their hearts content, and suddenly find they can't pull any more vehicles, as all their resources had been stolen.

Just some thoughts, once you start adding objectives and start to encourage zergs to split up, smaller outfits have a places, along side the larger ones too.

[maradine]

What do we have to do to stop being labeled as zergfits? We want to show the rest of the game we aren't just throwing 150 people at a door and steamrolling it because of our numbers. Our leaders and officers put a lot of time into training and coordination, but nobody sees any of that - they just see "zerg".


I don't think there's much you can do about that. Your comms are out of game, and your coordination is opaque to most. Not a bad thing, just a thing.

[Hourglass]

Smaller outfits simply need to do what I've been doing in EVE Online for seven years; make good use of force multipliers.

Pull MAX suits. Use upgraded MAX suits and have a dedicated, fully certed engi keeping them alive. One MAX suit is easily the equal of 4-5 enemy especially one with engi backup who knows when he's taken too much damage.

Speaking of engies. Claymores are one of my favorite tools. When you jump on a base and start taking it as an outfit, have your engies jump into their claymore outfit, and start marking chokepoints and entrances with them. Then they can switch back to whatever class they want. Claymores don't disappear if you swap classes, so use them liberally.

Light Assaults with C4. Place your LA up high near chokepoints if possible. Tell them to hold their fire until the enemy is past them and shooting at your HA, then have them open up on their rear with C4. In the military we use this tactic of drawing the enemy in, then surrounding them.

Grenades. I make the vast majority of my xp every day from grenades. If you find yourself heavily outnumbered, then you're absolutely 100% guaranteed to find your enemy all bunched up in small pockets. Fill those pockets with lethal death pinecones.

There are also a few other ways to multiply the force of a smaller outfit, but I don't want this to turn into a TL:DR post.

[boogy]

I think large outfits actually ruin the pop balance in this game. The only time they don't are during the 2 prime hours of the day when they can't continent hop due to pop caps. Other than those brief prime time periods, they are a detriment to game balance.

[Miir]

At first glance it is easy to put the blame on large outfits for unbalancing the game. But really it's the games design that's at fault here. Getting steam rolled all the time is not fun. Not for the smaller group and even over time not for the larger group either. Unless the intent was to make a game that only a few large outfits play and everyone else just sits on the side lines they have a lot of work to do.

They really need their mission system to be able to pair up outfits based on size so fighting was more balanced that way.

They also need a way to coordinate with alliance members. I posted this back in beta. Still applies.

I would like SOE to consider adding in some sort of multi-outfit Alliance organization features in game. Sort of like the a Platoon feature for squads but at the Outfit level.

This Alliance feature would allow leadership in each outfit to merge into an Alliance and see where the other members of the Alliance are on the map and coordinate better.

Suggest feature list:

- Map markers to request air/armor/infantry
- Map markers to flag enemy locations (air/armor/infantry)
- Alliance way points for each outfit. (Perhaps with outfit logo on the map)
- Alliance voice chat (only leadership levels of each outfit would have access)

I know likely some of these feature are coming down the pipes for high level commanders. However given the large gap between smaller outfits and large outfits in the games current state. I think for the sake of keeping the smaller groups happy this would be a great addition to the game. Even if it costs a little station cash to purchase on day one.

However there needs to be a cap on the amount of members you can have in an alliance. If there is no cap what would likely happen with a tool like this is it would be allow larger outfits to form into even larger groups and we'd continue to have the same issues we are having now. The alliance feature needs to be for the smaller groups to organize at the same level as a large outfit.

A large outfit might have 100 members online. So an alliance should be capped at 100 members. Maybe this could be dynamic based on the largest enemy outfit online at the time?

[Whiteagle]

And zerglings couldn't drive tanks. Well, they could drive them, but they couldn't shoot them.

There's been a lot of conversation about lack of defense and how people just cap a base and leave. It's because there is literally no way to defend that base. Lay mines? So you blow up 3-4 tanks. There are 12873013710928 zerg tanks right behind it. You would need just about every player in the area to lay mines for it to be effective and I don't think that many people have the cert.

All those people that complained to no avail about driver/gunner were right. In PS1, MBTs were pretty much outfit-only. You could run a single tank with your buddy, but you wouldn't be very effective. In order to get a big convoy of tanks, you needed an outfit. In this game, you don't need that at all. The zerg is way too powerful and just completely dominates the game.
Yeah, there may be something to this...

One man MBTs are a bit too much of a force multiplier all things considered, strong enough to hold there own against Heavy Assaults long enough to get to cover and repair...

...I was won over to this argument by the redundancy of the Lightning though.

This is sort of an aside about base defense, but really I feel the lack of base defense is the core of the issue. I feel the addition of the light assault class was stupid. There should not be an infantry class that just completely bypasses defense and jumps over walls. Everyone should have to walk through that outer shield, and that shield should not have a fucking generator 10 meters away from it that will make it go away. In PS1, the generator that made the shield go away was usually buried 2 floors underground. Good luck getting in the courtyard, assholes.
Eh, honestly Light Assault isn't a problem...
I'm a veteran of the Second Life Military scene, so I know that 15-20 seconds of Jet-packing isn't nearly as bad as say, Grav Packs that can easily let you jump 100 meters in the air.

No the problem is most bases, especially Major Facilities, are poorly designed at best when it comes to a defensive standpoint.

Spawn buildings seem to be placed as FAR from the objective as possible or, like Amp Stations you were no doubt referring to, one of the first things presented to attackers as they roll up on a base.

Hell it was even worse in the Beta, where Shield Gens were located at the satellite points!
I'm not saying they shouldn't be the easiest objective to accomplish, but


They don't want people to turtle, but damn it THIS IS WAR!
Sometime you need to entrench and stand your ground, not run all over the place like a chicken with their head cut off...

To me it seems to be the reward mechanic, all those big XP deposits, outshine the lots of small one. Then on top of that farmable spawn rooms, that keep popping out fresh XP, and you don't need to get out of your vehicle of choice. These form the zerg, add world population bonus, making there no point to playing on a low faction pop continent.

I would add these features in to give bonus to people doing things in smaller numbers.

Population XP bonus should be based on continent, and much more noticeable, encouraging a spread of population across the continents. This would reduce the Zerg size.

Reduce the bases cap XP, during the last double XP weekend when it did not effect base cap XP, I saw more fights, and less Zerging. Also limit the base cap XP verse region population, get too many people, then the amount of XP received drops, have far too many then no XP if given for capping the base.

Say when attack a small outpost, the ideal amount is 50 people, over that the XP per person for capping goes down, if it was to reach 100 people attacking, they don't get XP at all for the cap. Does not force the Zerg to split up, does how ever make them think if I follow all these people I'll get no XP.
Eh, I wouldn't do something like this, just because large battles will have a tendency to inflate as they draw ether factions Zerg's attention.

Added in additional objectives, I would remove the resource bonus away from the capture nodes, and added in new targets, that need to be defended to keep your resources coming in. These new targets would always be attack-able, no mater how far from the front lines they are. Basically they represent the empire logistics.

Imagine a resource silo, that fills up with resources say air, when its full it starts to give out air resources to your empire members, a hostile force could raid and steal these resources, and added them to their own empire's, and you'ld lose yours till it refills again. You give it a multiple step process so a team has to do it, 3 to 4 steps would do it, while they are emptying the silo they can not fight, so they would need some guards. While under attack it would flash and allow people to respond to it. The Zerg could be capping territory to their hearts content, and suddenly find they can't pull any more vehicles, as all their resources had been stolen.

Just some thoughts, once you start adding objectives and start to encourage zergs to split up, smaller outfits have a places, along side the larger ones too.
Eh, I don't know about making Territory completely worthless when it comes to Resources, but making bases actually play a part in your Faction's infrastructure would definitely be welcome.

Like say there were a few Air towers with "Air Resource Processors", Generators that are what actually give your Faction its Air Resources depending on what Air Resource territories they are connected to.

So say you have five Air Resource territories, if they were connected to one Generator they'd give you fifteen AR, but two would give you 30 and so on.

These bases would be constantly being infiltrated by enemy Spec Ops trying to disable your Infrastructure by destroying those Gens.

Smaller outfits simply need to do what I've been doing in EVE Online for seven years; make good use of force multipliers.

Pull MAX suits. Use upgraded MAX suits and have a dedicated, fully certed engi keeping them alive. One MAX suit is easily the equal of 4-5 enemy especially one with engi backup who knows when he's taken too much damage.

Speaking of engies. Claymores are one of my favorite tools. When you jump on a base and start taking it as an outfit, have your engies jump into their claymore outfit, and start marking chokepoints and entrances with them. Then they can switch back to whatever class they want. Claymores don't disappear if you swap classes, so use them liberally.

Light Assaults with C4. Place your LA up high near chokepoints if possible. Tell them to hold their fire until the enemy is past them and shooting at your HA, then have them open up on their rear with C4. In the military we use this tactic of drawing the enemy in, then surrounding them.

Grenades. I make the vast majority of my xp every day from grenades. If you find yourself heavily outnumbered, then you're absolutely 100% guaranteed to find your enemy all bunched up in small pockets. Fill those pockets with lethal death pinecones.

There are also a few other ways to multiply the force of a smaller outfit, but I don't want this to turn into a TL:DR post.
Great advice man, thanks for the Protips!

[CaptainTenneal]

I agree with the need for more tactics. I miss MAX-crashes, Gen drop-n-holds, last minute base hacks. We need smaller scale objectives like these, to give a viable use to smaller skilled squads (and thus smaller outfits). The zerg should be unbeatable in battle, but vulnerable to a skilled team taking their XP away by saving a base if they get lazy.

[EVILPIG]

Real busy and not much time. Missed first 6 pages. Sadly, there are large outfits that give other large outfits a bad name. The 666th is very organized, does it's best to contribute to the empire and has never randomly invited anyone in game. Everyone in this outfit, applied on our website. We coordinate multiple divisions of combined arms and spread our forces across the map to hold, shape and break enemy lines. We conduct many training courses throughout the week on tactics for our divisions and command strategy, as well as providing hands on leadership to guide commanders in training as they practice live. We coordinate with other outfits and promote civility and respect amongst all other players, friend or foe. Our goal is not to be "huge", it is a byproduct of what we offer and we continue to develop our organizational structure to our current size. Our goal is to 1 have fun and 2 organize to win, which is more "fun".

Busy at work though, so gotta go.

[Westy543]

I dunno, I run with a small squad of friends (about 12 of us!) every once in awhile apart from my outfit (it is a large 1000+ member one). I don't feel I am hurt by the presence of large outfits on the enemy team, or them on our team. Planetside scales as you do... if there are 300 people at a base, I would rather 80% of them be organized from the same outfit than 240 pubbies that are all working towards their own objective.

The beauty of being a small force is if what you are doing isn't effective... go somewhere else. My 12 man squad has put a dent in several platoons worth of guys because they were so steadfast in pushing to the NC warpgate on Indar that we encircled them and cut them off. That bought the rest of the NC time to completely smash their offensive.

I don't think they're a problem.

Edit: Well said, Robo.

[Mox]

My outfit is really small. We have 1or 2 squads in the field and we are running different ops that fits to the size of our gang. We arent joining the zerg most of the time.
One of our big focuses is aircombat. That means we take all mossis or libs.
We are also performing alot of galdrops over major bases.
For me and my outfit pals these kind of ops are fun but i have to admit that there are better ways to make a lot of xp in short time.
I think there are loads of possibilities for small outfits to perform actions which really can help your empire to dominate. Just imagine 15 ESF which play together securing the air over a base... Thats for certain a good thing for our faction.

[Kracken]

I rarely post here. I'll say this.


There are in reality very few large outfits
It's just two months after launch
There are only three continents to go with three Empires
If you cannot be effective with a squad examine what you are doing and how your are doing it
Go to the PS2 website and count the number of times it states MASSIVE SCALE

[BiggLouFiftyFve]

Someone pointed out earlier in this thread that it's not the quantity, but the quality of the numbers... I'm a member of a very large outfit on Connery, and I can tell you that we are definitely do not zerg. We have Command on nearly 100% of the time (yes nearly 24/7) and to be active in the squads, voice comms are required. Not only that, but we have a membership process that requires recruits to sign up on the forums, fill out and application and then be screened by outfit leadership.

Everything we do in game is highly coordinated. What you see at a base might only be a fraction of our forces online. We don't just will-nilly hop from CP to CP, command has a strategy and orders are given to the various units. As others have said, there as some large outfits that try to suck up all the nubs as they come into the game. People come to us looking for large, organized operations, and they get it.

I played WWIIOL (2001 - 2004) in a small French regiment, and we got steamrolled the majority of the time by the larger German ones (partially because we were playing French or hard mode, but due to our size as well. Despite all that, we still had fun and there was a place for the size of our group by working with other groups in-game.

Maybe forming alliances between the smaller outfits is key. Platoons are not restricted to outfits, so that would essentially increase numbers while allowing the retention of identity. Just a thought... Even having an alliance interface in game would be cool... Restricting the size of outfits are not going to break up the larger outfits. All it will do is break up the in-game membership. They'll still join voice comms, squads and work as one unit. The in-game outfit system is more for grouping players and showing tags than actually working as a unit...

[basti]

I had a great discussion on Twitter last night about this and wanted to bring it here.

First off let me start this thread by saying this is NOT an attack on specific outfits. I will not allow people to argue about specific outfits, this discussion is about the size of outfits in general and whether or not you think they hurt the game. Also, I don't want to hear bs like "ohh you're doing it wrong" etc.

This has bothered me since late beta and is becoming more and more of an issue (imo) as of late. I don't have solution for it because there really isn't one but I want to see what peoples thoughts are.

My outfit is smaller in size compared to most. We typically run about a half a platoon or so. We are finding it difficult to find a solid role for us in the game that isn't boring and doesn't involve getting steamrolled. This is becoming more and more difficult as time goes on. Huge outfits are able to put 100 or more people or more on an objective and essentially win with numbers in almost all fights. We are able to hold off, but it's simply a matter of time until we are struck down due to sheer numbers.

Smaller outfits are finding that they have to disband and join larger outfits if they want to even have fun, causing them to lose their own identity and be absorbed into massive teams because there are no recruits left to take. For me community is more important to a game than the game itself, hence why I've been doing this all these years.

Is having one massive outfit per empire what the developers intended? Is spam inviting every no outfit person in the game really a viable recruiting effort? How many of these people even know what they are joining?

What is everyones thoughts on this issue?



Hold your pants, this will hit your hard: I HAVE A SOLUTION!


Its called an alliance. Grab other Outfits of your empire, get your asses together on the same TS3 server, use channel commander to communicate with each other.

its what we are doing, and its working like a charm. Vanu Corp only holds a platoon in a good night, mostly only a squad or two. We wouldnt be able to do much on our own. But with a simple press of a button, we can call help when we need help.

[Meecrob]

I rarely post here. I'll say this.


There are in reality very few large outfits
It's just two months after launch
There are only three continents to go with three Empires
If you cannot be effective with a squad examine what you are doing and how your are doing it
Go to the PS2 website and count the number of times it states MASSIVE SCALE


^ this. Tactics and strategies for planetside 2 are in their infancy stage and like stated so very very often the metagame is in its infancy stage too.

I think the addition of more continents is a big part to the solution of this "problem". When the zerg is more spread out its easier as a smalll group to avoid them or only fight a small part of it.

Let me also state for the record (it's only my opinion). I see people referencing to the good ol' days of interlink facilities and doors. This i really don't understand. You really want the situations back where you sit infront of a door where the only way u may get through is to walk through aoe spam? Talk about a situation where a small group will never be effective. Interlinks you had to have atleast twice the amount of people to stand a chance to take it.

In closing, War, when the factions are sort of equal, is alot about numbers. I don't want artificial mechanics so that a small group can own a large group if the skill level of the two groups is sort of equal.

[Westy543]

Hold your pants, this will hit your hard: I HAVE A SOLUTION!


Its called an alliance. Grab other Outfits of your empire, get your asses together on the same TS3 server, use channel commander to communicate with each other.

its what we are doing, and its working like a charm. Vanu Corp only holds a platoon in a good night, mostly only a squad or two. We wouldnt be able to do much on our own. But with a simple press of a button, we can call help when we need help.

Watching a couple outfits work together is a great thing. I've seen two or three stand against something twice their size because they had superior coordination and more diverse use of resources. One outfit bringing their time tested armor while another brings their veteran infantry platoons to support them? Together they'll smash faces.

[RykerStruvian]

My outfit is really small. We have 1or 2 squads in the field and we are running different ops that fits to the size of our gang. We arent joining the zerg most of the time.
One of our big focuses is aircombat. That means we take all mossis or libs.
We are also performing alot of galdrops over major bases.
For me and my outfit pals these kind of ops are fun but i have to admit that there are better ways to make a lot of xp in short time.
I think there are loads of possibilities for small outfits to perform actions which really can help your empire to dominate. Just imagine 15 ESF which play together securing the air over a base... Thats for certain a good thing for our faction.
This is what I've been doing a lot of too. I only field about one squad at a time and the best way I've seen us offer help to the rest of the empire is by fielding an all reaver squadron with the primary focus of AA. Mossies --> Libs --> Gals are our priority and we've felt this is the best way to contribute. We would like to do more like ground battles but it's not very easy to do unless you have the numbers.

If we absolutely -must- field as ground units, what we typically do is use an AMS and attack strategic objectives rather than a particular area. So for instance we will attack the western generator at a tech plant, take it down, and then hold it to make sure the enemy doesn't bring it up. Or we will attack a tech plant and blow all the air terminals, generally anything we can do to hurt the enemy at large through indirect means as opposed to straight-up gunplay.

[Kracken]

I rarely post here. I'll say this.


There are in reality very few large outfits
It's just two months after launch
There are only three continents to go with three Empires
If you cannot be effective with a squad examine what you are doing and how your are doing it
Go to the PS2 website and count the number of times it states MASSIVE SCALE


One more thing.

Go make more friends.

[basti]

At first glance it is easy to put the blame on large outfits for unbalancing the game. But really it's the games design that's at fault here. Getting steam rolled all the time is not fun. Not for the smaller group and even over time not for the larger group either. Unless the intent was to make a game that only a few large outfits play and everyone else just sits on the side lines they have a lot of work to do.

They really need their mission system to be able to pair up outfits based on size so fighting was more balanced that way.

They also need a way to coordinate with alliance members. I posted this back in beta. Still applies.



However there needs to be a cap on the amount of members you can have in an alliance. If there is no cap what would likely happen with a tool like this is it would be allow larger outfits to form into even larger groups and we'd continue to have the same issues we are having now. The alliance feature needs to be for the smaller groups to organize at the same level as a large outfit.

A large outfit might have 100 members online. So an alliance should be capped at 100 members. Maybe this could be dynamic based on the largest enemy outfit online at the time?



Ingame systems are pointless. I dont need an ingame alliance system, i use TS3 and a forum anyway. That ingame alliance system my give us access to some fancy tools, but we can just create 2, 4 or a hundred alliances if we need to.


Same with a member limit to outfits. Just create more outfits.



There really is no problem folks, large outfits are fine. Smaller outfits can deal with them, if they team up and work together. In the end, 100 people will always win against 10, thats just the way it is and always has been.






Folks, really, stop trying to find issues in the game when the only reason those issues exist is you. Fix stuff yourself, form an alliance.

[Blynd]

I had a great discussion on Twitter last night about this and wanted to bring it here.

First off let me start this thread by saying this is NOT an attack on specific outfits. I will not allow people to argue about specific outfits, this discussion is about the size of outfits in general and whether or not you think they hurt the game. Also, I don't want to hear bs like "ohh you're doing it wrong" etc.

This has bothered me since late beta and is becoming more and more of an issue (imo) as of late. I don't have solution for it because there really isn't one but I want to see what peoples thoughts are.

My outfit is smaller in size compared to most. We typically run about a half a platoon or so. We are finding it difficult to find a solid role for us in the game that isn't boring and doesn't involve getting steamrolled. This is becoming more and more difficult as time goes on. Huge outfits are able to put 100 or more people or more on an objective and essentially win with numbers in almost all fights. We are able to hold off, but it's simply a matter of time until we are struck down due to sheer numbers.

Smaller outfits are finding that they have to disband and join larger outfits if they want to even have fun, causing them to lose their own identity and be absorbed into massive teams because there are no recruits left to take. For me community is more important to a game than the game itself, hence why I've been doing this all these years.

Is having one massive outfit per empire what the developers intended? Is spam inviting every no outfit person in the game really a viable recruiting effort? How many of these people even know what they are joining?

What is everyones thoughts on this issue?

i completely agree but like you im not looking or the zergfits to be made obsolite but for the smaller outfits to be made more useful ie bringing in the ability to deny an empire tech or other benefits by taking a base offline and thus stopping the benefit ie old school ps1 gen holds.

these were always done by more mobile and close knit outfits - we [LFS]
blew all the blowable Gens on NC Hossin SIMULTANEOUSLY at one point, getting so many members onto a continent without creating a solitary hotspot and then coordinating the simultaneous gen drops with 30 odd players is the kind of gameplay that the smaller more mobile outfits can give to the game but atm as you say hamma the zerg is the only route atm.

[Stanis]

You get the smaller outfits working together effectively it then doesn't matter if there is a single 1000 player zergfit or ten 100 player outfits each with a couple squads online.

There might be an argument that multiple independent teams get their specialist jobs done better.

The key is communication.
The in game capabilities are useless and trivialized.

I started to write an analysis of /leader and /order. Instead I'll just put what I'd like to see as changes/features.

Continental command should be focused on active Squad and Platoon leaders.


The SL channels are moderated. Without a +voice you are read-only.
SL /leader is a continental channel
Active SL auto-join the leader channel.
Also By purchasing SL /leader cert you always join the 'moderated' channel
Players with SL /leader cert get a +voice if they are SL
Orders is continental only.

There should be two routes to 'Empire' command. Or outfit metagame.
The first is the leading of squads and investment in command certs.
The second recognizes the contribution of outfits.


A new SL /command cert with a moderated channel that covers every continent.
Players with SL /command cert always join channel.
Outfit leaders can assign 1 player per hundred members (up to 3 max) to have access +v to the command channel.
Active SL get voice in /comma
nd


This is all irrelevant the moment we get custom channels.
Ideally we would like to build relationships with outfits and self-moderate.

Other useful features would be intel based.


Reveal friendlies.
Reveal enemies.

The heat map of activity is .. halfway almost useful for continental.

[Hamma]

Hold your pants, this will hit your hard: I HAVE A SOLUTION!


Its called an alliance. Grab other Outfits of your empire, get your asses together on the same TS3 server, use channel commander to communicate with each other.

its what we are doing, and its working like a charm. Vanu Corp only holds a platoon in a good night, mostly only a squad or two. We wouldnt be able to do much on our own. But with a simple press of a button, we can call help when we need help.

This is just creating another zerg and doesn't solve the root cause that there are very few things for small groups to accomplish in PlanetSide 2.

Though I totally agree that's a great way to get shit done ;)

[basti]

This is just creating another zerg and doesn't solve the root cause that there are very few things for small groups to accomplish in PlanetSide 2.

Though I totally agree that's a great way to get shit done ;)


I do agree that there is not enough stuff for small outfits.

In fact, what can we actually do? Attack and defend bases. Thats it.


There is no behind enemy lines stuff, nothing to do in a empty hex that benefits the zerg, but doesnt put yourself into a zerg. No generators to blow and hold down to deny tech. No NTU drains, just nothing.

I guess thats gonna stay for a while, game needs time to evolve. :)

[QuantumMechanic]

This problem has absolutely nothing to do with outfits or outfit size. You could be facing a massive non-outfit zerg army and have the same issue. The defenders could be a non-outfit pickup platoon and you'll have thes exact same issue.

The issue is, bases aren't designed with defense in mind. You need at least as many defenders as attackers to defend a large base (except for bio labs).

That's just wrong.

[Dragonskin]

The problem with giving small outfits something to do is.. what can you possibly give a small outfit to do that a large outfit would also be able to do? What makes a specific objective more small outfit friendly? Then why can't you do that in PS2 currently? How would you go about adding something similar to the game?

If you can answer those then maybe those things you bring up will be added to PS2 in the future.

Right now a lot of the problem is like what someone else mentioned. 3 factions and only 3 continents. You get 1 or possibly 2 factions rolling in a continent and then the other will take stuff on continents that the zergs aren't focusing on. Until there are more things to do then you can't really spread out the zerg or large guilds much so they will tend to gravitate to where the bigger fights are or they will just steamroll over anything not being contested.

[Dragonskin]

This problem has absolutely nothing to do with outfits or outfit size. You could be facing a massive non-outfit zerg army and have the same issue. The defenders could be a non-outfit pickup platoon and you'll have thes exact same issue.

The issue is, bases aren't designed with defense in mind. You need at least as many defenders as attackers to defend a large base (except for bio labs).

That's just wrong.

That is also a good point. Not only are bases hard to defend, but there aren't huge incentives to defend them. Resources come too fast and most objectives don't really matter because all anyone really wants is a Bio Lab and Tech Plant with a line going back to their Warpgate. The rest of the objectives are just there for extra capture points for most people.

[EVILPIG]

This is just creating another zerg and doesn't solve the root cause that there are very few things for small groups to accomplish in PlanetSide 2.

Though I totally agree that's a great way to get shit done ;)

So, to you, a "zerg" is simply a larger force, regardless of their level of coordination? An alliance of outfits is no different than a large organized outfit in that they are coordinating a large force. Assuming that the outfit or alliance is coordinating at all.

It would be great if there were more types of objectives, but don't think that larger outfits would not target these same objectives. We already do as much as we can behind enemy lines to interfere with the enemy.

[Whiteagle]

The problem with giving small outfits something to do is.. what can you possibly give a small outfit to do that a large outfit would also be able to do? What makes a specific objective more small outfit friendly? Then why can't you do that in PS2 currently? How would you go about adding something similar to the game?

If you can answer those then maybe those things you bring up will be added to PS2 in the future.
Added in additional objectives, I would remove the resource bonus away from the capture nodes, and added in new targets, that need to be defended to keep your resources coming in. These new targets would always be attack-able, no mater how far from the front lines they are. Basically they represent the empire logistics.

Imagine a resource silo, that fills up with resources say air, when its full it starts to give out air resources to your empire members, a hostile force could raid and steal these resources, and added them to their own empire's, and you'ld lose yours till it refills again. You give it a multiple step process so a team has to do it, 3 to 4 steps would do it, while they are emptying the silo they can not fight, so they would need some guards. While under attack it would flash and allow people to respond to it. The Zerg could be capping territory to their hearts content, and suddenly find they can't pull any more vehicles, as all their resources had been stolen.

Just some thoughts, once you start adding objectives and start to encourage zergs to split up, smaller outfits have a places, along side the larger ones too.

Eh, I don't know about making Territory completely worthless when it comes to Resources, but making bases actually play a part in your Faction's infrastructure would definitely be welcome.

Like say there were a few Air towers with "Air Resource Processors", Generators that are what actually give your Faction its Air Resources depending on what Air Resource territories they are connected to.

So say you have five Air Resource territories, if they were connected to one Generator they'd give you fifteen AR, but two would give you 30 and so on.

These bases would be constantly being infiltrated by enemy Spec Ops trying to disable your Infrastructure by destroying those Gens.

Bam!

Right now a lot of the problem is like what someone else mentioned. 3 factions and only 3 continents. You get 1 or possibly 2 factions rolling in a continent and then the other will take stuff on continents that the zergs aren't focusing on. Until there are more things to do then you can't really spread out the zerg or large guilds much so they will tend to gravitate to where the bigger fights are or they will just steamroll over anything not being contested.
We can only hope... but then again if the new Continents have Outpost that are as indefensible as the old ones...

[ringring]

The problem with giving small outfits something to do is.. what can you possibly give a small outfit to do that a large outfit would also be able to do? What makes a specific objective more small outfit friendly? Then why can't you do that in PS2 currently? How would you go about adding something similar to the game?

If you can answer those then maybe those things you bring up will be added to PS2 in the future.

Right now a lot of the problem is like what someone else mentioned. 3 factions and only 3 continents. You get 1 or possibly 2 factions rolling in a continent and then the other will take stuff on continents that the zergs aren't focusing on. Until there are more things to do then you can't really spread out the zerg or large guilds much so they will tend to gravitate to where the bigger fights are or they will just steamroll over anything not being contested.
Easy.
If, say, blowing a tech plant gen removed tech benefit then that would be a good spec ops target and good for a small outfit, especially if it was the tech on Esamir.

If the small outfit and defended the gen the rest of teh empire could take advantage, you'd hope.

On the other hand it would also be a good target for the spec ops division of a large outfit such as Robo's, but also others and in which case the rest of their outfit could , hopefully take advantage.

The real problem, apart from spec ops oportunities, is not large outfits but inability to stop the zerg or a big outfit push. ie it's all about defensibility together with spec ops.

As I said before, I'm sure Higby et al would like for these types of things to be in the game but exactly how and when is open to speculation.

Oh and +1 for additional continents.

Further, why do some think additional continents mean that the population will be spread more widely? If that does happen (it didn't in PS1) it will become a major problem.

[Beerbeer]

No matter what happens, the zerg will live on. No amount of tweaks, changes or incentives will change that.

However, there are always exceptions to this rule, what I'm saying is that given a certain population level, the number of exceptions goes up. Right now, there are just a few running outside of the zerg. Increase the population and that number goes up, enough to provide smaller outfit activity, which I rather enjoy myself.

Right now it's all or nothing.

[p0intman]

As a tactical officer in PG, I pretty much have resolved to not even log in because all that happens is tank spam and zergside precisely because of massive outfits and large as hell numbers of people naturally grouping up anyway.

There needs to be content for smaller, more precise outfits to thrive off of where large numbers of groups and armor won't work or isn't viable.

It also wouldnt hurt if bases were defensible and required thought and planning to take something that was actively defended. Though they nerf that at every turn, so, I just see zergside every day all day for the foreseeable future and the next couple of years.

right now, large groups of people hurt the game more than help, and a lot of it has to do with quick ttk and the nature of vehicles. it wouldnt hurt to make tanks require a dedicated gunner, or to significantly lengthen their spawn timer or increase the resource cost, either, but we know Smed's two cents on any of THAT.

The nature of air v ground dominance doesn't help, either. The requirement to have a dedicated a2a group for every ground detatchment hurts small outfits that are primarily mobile/mechanised infantry, and in some cases is prohibitive for some groups that don't have people to spare.

Its a large combination of the above, and the problem is only magnified in large groups of people, outfits or zerglings alike. Until the majority of that is fixed, this problem will remain, and is only likely to become worse and worse until there is a fundemental switch in developer design/intent.

[Lonehunter]

Not mentioning outfit names should also include people posting to defend their outfit

On my server there is an outfit with over 1600 people, it's very open, anyone can join, anyone can listen, and they don't actually do much tactical play, but it helps them coordinate with more then 11 other people.

The effect large outfits can cause now is like the effect CR5s had on normal zerg in PS1. It's just to help coordinate, "Air go here, tanks meet up here, hit this target."

In my opinion the problem is the lack of command support from the game. The Mission System was sold as this huge keystone that tied new players and vets together, and it hasn't even been mentioned post launch.

We really don't have enough tools to coordinate on a large scale : /

[SKYeXile]

Zergs like to travel in fully manned 12/12 sunderers, i hear tank busters fix them right up.

[RSphil]

I find the zerg always rolls bases due to the weak defences in the bases. I think SOE should look at guild wars 2's world v world. a zerg can be beaten back by good defensive planning. ie building and upgrading bases. this could use empire resorces gained from owning bases on the continant. adding to the meta game. I am a very small outfit and intend to stay that way. I am not in a huge guild in gw2 but we are well known on the eu servers for our fighting skills and being able to cause trouble. this is how I want my outfit to be Like as well. guild limits are also In place and I think outfits should be limited and you pay to increa
se in size. if they bring outfit partnaships in this would aid in team work and stop huge outfits serving the map all over. a lot can be done to prevent massive outfits and stop the zerg gameplay. it will always happen but it may not always win.

[Beerbeer]

A lot of you fail to see the psychology in all of this. People zerg for a reason. It doesn't matter if they are in one outfit or not.

However, there are exceptions to this, just that the server population is so low, we don't see them.

[Chalupacabra]

This has bothered me since late beta and is becoming more and more of an issue (imo) as of late. I don't have solution for it because there really isn't one but I want to see what peoples thoughts are.

My outfit is smaller in size compared to most. We typically run about a half a platoon or so. We are finding it difficult to find a solid role for us in the game that isn't boring and doesn't involve getting steamrolled. This is becoming more and more difficult as time goes on. Huge outfits are able to put 100 or more people or more on an objective and essentially win with numbers in almost all fights. We are able to hold off, but it's simply a matter of time until we are struck down due to sheer numbers.

I know you said you didn't want to hear that you were doing it wrong, but...

If you are only running 2 or 3 squads at a time, you can be effective, it just might not be the type of game play you want to excel in. My own outfit often sends lone squads into bases to prep them for the advance. This happens before we have adjancency on the base. This means that when we move onto the base, the enemy discovers most of their turrets and secondary terminals are hacked, generators destroyed, and the vehicle bay has been mined.

That's a task suited to a small outfit, but it lacks the combat aspect you are hoping for. Unfortunately, any combat role you chose can also be accomplished (and probably better/faster) by a large outfit.

Still, without much thought I've come up with small outfit tactics that do involve combat. Its up to you to provide the organization though:

Liberator bombing: 2 squads is 8 libs, or less + fighter escorts. Go smash an armor zerg.
Air Raid: Enemy libs keeping you suppressed? 12-24 mossies will handle that.
Max Crash: Can't break that bio lab? Try running squads of 8 max, 2 medic, 2 engineer.
Sundy Hunt: Break off from your attack/defense and dedicate a squad to finding and destroying the enemy sundy.

Along the lines of the prep above:

Prep the defense: Getting steam rolled? Fall back to the nearest large facility and make sure you are ready. Repair the turrets, rehack the terminals, mine the entrances.

Smaller outfits are finding that they have to disband and join larger outfits if they want to even have fun, causing them to lose their own identity and be absorbed into massive teams because there are no recruits left to take. For me community is more important to a game than the game itself, hence why I've been doing this all these years.

As others have pointed out, you could ally yourself with other outfits rather than disbanding. There are plenty of examples of that already.

[Thannis]

For my outfit, I purposely have us go where the major zergfit of my server ISN'T because they ruin any fight and fun there is at a base. Their officers put out a false olive branch of cooperation, but when other officers of my outfit tried to make good on their offer, we pretty much got shit in our face. Also add into the fact that because they are as large as they are, I don't find it surprising to find that when I get TK'd they're a member of said zergfit; furthering my contempt for their lot.

[Huma]

The issue really isn't with Zerg or no Zerg. Whether their organized or not they've always been a force to recon with. In PS1 there were a number of mitigating features built into the game that allowed smaller teams to hold out against a much larger force. Those features being controlled entry points, underground spawns, and excellent CE deployables.

It also helped that you didn't have to face the Zerg head on to participate in a fight. You could swing around behind the Zerg and disable a key base to draw some of them off the main fight and deprive them of key assets. Granted Gen Dropping was a huge pain but having the ability to open up another front in an unexpected area helped make things varied.

My point is that it isn't that the outfits are to big or that some of them are just turning Zerg. The problem is that key features that gave smaller outfits options and defensibility are just not present in the game at the moment. At least not in the same way they were on PS1. Granted there are some good places like Raven's Landing where natural terrain makes the outpost more defensible than large bases with gate shields. But those gems are few and far between.

[Mr Underbeard]

It is obvious that the smaller outfits are at a disadvantage. However, limiting the size of the outfits is not going to stop the problem. For example: outfit X has more than the outfit cap allows. Solution, create outfit 2X, and put the rest of the outfit in there. Communication is a non-issue, as most, if not all, outfits use some form of third party communication (TS, Mumble, etc).

Now I have nothing against any size of outfit. All the different outfits make up the community, and I believe that the only viable solution for smaller outfits is to make alliances with other outfits. I will admit that I am apart of a rather large outfit, and love the experience. We do operate on a large scale with tons of players online at once, but we are not a zerg. There is a difference between having numbers, and a zerg.

[Hamma]

There needs to be content for smaller, more precise outfits to thrive off of where large numbers of groups and armor won't work or isn't viable.

Holy crap, something I agree with p0intman on. Tomorrow really is the end of the world.

[DviddLeff]

In my eyes one major problem is that we only have three continents - as long as you are taking ground on one why go anywhere else? This encourages each empire to pick a continent and get their forces there primarily where they can take ground to grab a new continental lock perk only pulling off when their existing lock comes under threat as another empire nears victory.

Outfits are not the problem - if a force is zerging one point then hit them behind their main force and make them split to deal with you in multiple points. Small outfits just need to pick their targets and not engage the enemy zerg head on.

[NewSith]

Granted there are some good places like Raven's Landing where natural terrain turns makes the outpost more defensible than large bases with gate shields. But those gems are few and far between.

And people rarely fight for them, because it is hard to attack them, while they can just go and capture "DAT BAYZ" and get some instant XP boost.

[Rolfski]

This game was designed with massive battles in mind, so whoever brings the most organized numbers to the table is at a clear advantage. The tricky part is the word "organized" though.

With increasing numbers, organization becomes more challenging. So a big outfit doesn't necessarily mean a well organized outfit. Running multiple full platoons in an tight, orchestrated way is an art in itself. So it's here where the smaller outfits can take the edge. Also, being a smaller outfit doesn't mean that you can't deploy a big army of your own. Organize yourself with other smaller outfits, set up your comms and form a multiple-outfit alliance with the potential to be more effective than any huge outfit out there.

Having said this, I think the game could use more love for smaller teams to become more meaningful.

[waldizzo]

Objectives similar to gen holds and NTU drains and lattice breaking were things that smaller groups of players traditionally did in PS1. I'm not saying I want those exact objectives in PS2, but something of a similar nature.

For example: In the original game, blowing a generator was not something an outfit would send 200 guys in tanks to complete. Even if a large outfit with hundreds of members were to do perform that tactic, only a small group of them would go. Smaller groups of opposing forces would be the ones to respond most of the time.

In the current game, if a smaller group of players attempts to do something similar, such as capture territory around a base to increase influence or cut off the enemy, they are almost instantly met with a huge tank column that spams shells through door ways, windows and camps the spawn room. As we found out last night while trying to defend a blown generator at an enemy tech plant, the tanks just shoot the outside walls and their HE rounds hit us on the inside. Through the walls.

Granted, I am really interested in seeing how more continents affects the flow of game. Spreading the players out more will help in my opinion.

[Natir]

Being a part of a larger outfit, I can say I feel very bad for smaller outfits. There just isn't much for them to do and less they can actually do on their own. Taking a platoon worth of guys and capturing a bio lab against a bigger force? Could be trouble. The problem is that this game is about numbers and spawn points right now. If you control the most spawn points and have the larger force, you tend to win... a majority of the time.

This is in no way to sound like we are gloating, just stating a simple fact that this game is about numbers and that is a bad thing. In the future, I hope this to not be the case but as it stands, we are stuck with it. When we have lost a territory, it is because of we either had way less guys or 0 spawn points. More emphasis on the spawn points. Like I said, this isn't about gloating and is all about how the game works right now. There are many things we want in this game that would also benefit smaller outfits.

1) Cap times are way too quick. If a territory is being capped back from you, you sometimes don't even have time to blink before it is lost.

2) The tools for platoon and outfit management are terrible. You can't even link more than one platoon. Something that would be amazing for smaller outfits. Think of being able to be attached as a company for a larger outfit. While this greatly helps large outfits, it also can help smaller outfits with alliances and working together. Makes for managing all those people less hectic.

3) You want to defend a base, you are fucked. You get no benefit for defending any territory so why bother? This right here is a big one for smaller outfits. This game is all about getting EXP for those cert points and when you defend anything, it means nothing other then adding another defense number to your list. Defending most bases, facilities and outposts are also hard as hell since all the enemy has to do is just mass up either with a few AMS's, a bunch of infantry or zerg that point down with armor and air.

4) The "zerg" typically move from point to point to point so if you are a smaller outfit, you need to avoid them. Right now, what can you do if the zerg is pushing in as a small outfit? Nothing.

There are many things that can help but I only list a few. Most of these things that help smaller outfits, help larger outfits as well. By adding in a change for one is a change for all. Lets hope this some of these tools and some of the meta game related shit gets changed soon. <3

[Malorn]

First, none of what I am posting here is in any way an indication of upcoming features or a promise of change, so don't be citing my response here as evidence of upcoming changes. The only promise I will make is that I will do all I can to make this game as enjoyable as possible for all sized groups and all types of players.

This is a great thread for information about meta-game issues facing outfits. The biggest is relevancy of a small outfit. I ran a small outfit in PS1, and I run with a very large outfit in PS2, so please believe me when I tell you that I understand what you are all saying here from both sides of the fence.


On the topic of large outfits and small outfits...

PS and PS2 have always been massive games, and as the slogan says - size always matters. I know there's animosity against large outfits but they are not all the same. Robocpf1 of GOTR mentioned earlier in this thread how his group organizes and also indicates Enclave's organization. There's a big difference between groups like AT, GOTR, and the Enclave, and groups that simply gobble up everyone they can and throw them at an objective. The latter is a huge waste of resources. And that waste can be (and is) exploited by more organized forces.

As TotalBiscuit mentioned in a mail response months ago, PlanetSide 2 is at its core a logistical game. Numbers matter in a logistical game, but not just numbers but how you organize them. There are force multipliers - vehicles, and there are strategic plays you can make. Ever see Buzz go for a warpgate camp on an enemy empire? He does that because it shifts their entire empire to defending by their warpgate rather than pushing deeper into hostile territory. You may also see Enclave pull a swarm of Dalton liberators to annihilate a tank zerg because in PS2, much like PS1, often times when players lose their vehicles they don't immediately go get another one. It helps shift the momentum of the battle and remove enemy force multipliers. And as robocpf1 mentioned, Enclave is typically putting 13 squads at different locations and only dumps the entire outfit on a location when we are fighting off multiple platoons. So you rarely see the full force of the outfit - its far too big to put into one location and putting them all in one location is a huge waste of resources and it isn't fun at all to steamroll the enemy with little resistance (it also gets you very few certs).

Smaller outfits can't be thinking like they are instant game-changers, but they can specialize and go for certain objectives and indirectly be huge factors in the success of the empire. One objective would be to shift the vehicle zergs - roll as many libs as you can, or bring in a swarm of air-to-air fighters to try to gain air superiority. Or set up a burster nest in a key location. These are things a small outfit can do to maximize their own efficiency while bringing something valuable to the situation. Can they single-handedly take on three times their numbers and succeed? No - and they shouldn't expect to. What they can do for now is look for ways to make a difference and study the meta game elements and work towards helping them. As more elements are added and improvements are made you will hopefully see more opportunities for the small outfits to shine.

To provide an example - one night I was on Amerish with a platoon of Enclave. It was very late at night because I'm a night owl and a West-coaster on an East coast server. NC outnumbered us 2:1 on the continent and there was no VS presence. Could we lock the continent? Of course not. But we could - and did - prevent the NC from locking it. We leveraged our organization to hop around from territory to territory, and we set up burster nests to greet the first responders - libs and reavers. By the time the ground forces showed up we had secured another territory and we moved on. We kept bouncing around and destroying aircraft, and we successfully prevented the NC from locking Amerish. We did that as a relatively small group against a much larger unorganized force. So one thing to consider is to shift your focus - dont' try to conquer the world, just try to make a difference in a smaller setting and find ways to leverage your own strengths to attain a challenging but achievable goal.

And now regarding the meta-game and how we can make things better...

There are also valid metagame concerns being brought here that aren't falling on deaf ears. I am particularly concerned about defense and the lack of the ability to do rapid response. That is something my outfit and many others loved in PS1 because it was a way to avoid the big zerg fights if you didn't want to participate. I think creating alternate ways to enjoy the game is good, and the existence of influence and small outposts is a clear indication that the game is intended to have larger fights and smaller ones going on simultaneously and provide enjoyment for players who like all sizes of engagements. So the real issue here to me is that we have not gotten the intended result.

It would be helpful to me if those in small and large outfits alike could comment on what they think would help make the game more enjoyable for them. Please think about the core issue and not symptoms of it. I already see you all want more tools for cross-outfit coordination. But at a more fundamental level...

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)

This is a sampling of the things I think about every day (all of which I'm leaning 'yes' towards - some feedback from you would be helpful). Feel free to add to the questions I posed above. I'm reading the responses here and paying attention. Love to know what you think.

And as you can see in my sig - I play a lot of PS2!

[elementHTTP]

Rly good point hamma !
Maybe outfit size limit as temp solution ?

[MuNrOe]

Hi Hamma and crew,
Long time since I posted here but here I go.

The problem stems with bases that are incapable (Spawn room can be camped by vech problem)of being defended effectively with small numbers of infantry along with the lack of a lattice system and the extremely fast TTK and re spawn times. Add to that the lack of meta game play and you have the problems outlined here in this post.

While the suggestion mentioned of limiting outfit number's is only really a patchwork solution to a deeper underlying problem. Lets face it if an outfit was forced to only have say 50 members then the outfits would create other outfits all still under the same premise. Example lets say the outfit "Killing" (pretty sure there isnt an outfit named this) has this restriction put on them. They would just go and make the following : Killing1,Killing2,Killing3,KillingG4 .

To solve the issues stated by Hamma you have to go back to the source and think outside the box. Only when you identify the underlying problems can you begin to build solutions.

I know allot of people put shit on PS1 but TBH its game play mechanics where close to being spot on. The real question is if the devs are going to be serious about these issues and make some major adjustments to the game to increase it's playability for large /medium/small outfits by adjusting the problems at the source. Or take the easy road and just make patch work cover up solutions to the deeper underlying problems with the game.

As an Officer who usually is running operations with groups between 10-30 people I have found the tactical and defensible aspects of this game not only mind numbingly boring but completely bias based on numbers and not skill. On top of all this the whack a mole game play and spread out fighting and all small outfits can do is run around capping empty bases. Small outfits always shined most in close infantry combat. This game currently lacks that.

Allot of things need to change I really hope the devs can work their magic and pull off something great. The first step is re-designing the bases with defense in mind along with non vehicular camp able spawn rooms and objectives that all link up to each other in a closed infantry environment.

Vech job should be to prevent the enemy from pulling more vech not prevent infantry from defending objectives and camping spawn rooms in regard to base structure and capture points .

Once this problem is fixed then we can talk about other suggestions to improve the game. (XP certs based on PS1 style base capture mechanics ect) But with comments like " To be clear, there are no plans to add a PS1 style "lattice" system or sanctuaries to the game" I sorta shrug my shoulders and say why bother TBH.

MuNrOe
BR40CR5

[maradine]

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natrual concentration of force?

* Yes.
* I don't know.
* Yes, either in perception or reality.
* Probably. That, or consider lowering the regeneration rate.
* I don't think so.

[QuantumMechanic]

* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?


This is a huge thing for me. What I would like to see: when the mission system arrives, somebody with certs in Leadership can create defend missions.

So l (as a guy who loves defending bases because I'm a camping bastard) get a queue of missions that say "Defend base X for Y period of time. Reward: Z experience".

I know there are other like-minded base defenders out there.

The next issue would be the defensibility of bases. As they stand right now neither the attacker nor the defender really has an advantage. It just comes down to numbers. Bases should be designed with defense in mind.

[Fear The Amish]

Smaller outfits simply need to do what I've been doing in EVE Online for seven years; make good use of force multipliers.

Pull MAX suits. Use upgraded MAX suits and have a dedicated, fully certed engi keeping them alive. One MAX suit is easily the equal of 4-5 enemy especially one with engi backup who knows when he's taken too much damage.

Speaking of engies. Claymores are one of my favorite tools. When you jump on a base and start taking it as an outfit, have your engies jump into their claymore outfit, and start marking chokepoints and entrances with them. Then they can switch back to whatever class they want. Claymores don't disappear if you swap classes, so use them liberally.

Light Assaults with C4. Place your LA up high near chokepoints if possible. Tell them to hold their fire until the enemy is past them and shooting at your HA, then have them open up on their rear with C4. In the military we use this tactic of drawing the enemy in, then surrounding them.

Grenades. I make the vast majority of my xp every day from grenades. If you find yourself heavily outnumbered, then you're absolutely 100% guaranteed to find your enemy all bunched up in small pockets. Fill those pockets with lethal death pinecones.

There are also a few other ways to multiply the force of a smaller outfit, but I don't want this to turn into a TL:DR post.

The problem is with Force multipliers is the zergfit can have all of them, were as a small outfit needs to pick 1-2. Oh so you pull AI maxs and engies to heal well too bad because they have 5 libs overhead covered by 5-10 ESF and 22 tanks waiting for you. They nerfed the best force multiplier which was a Tech Plant and honestly im just tired of Liberatorside. I don't know what this game needs but currently with the Population were its at and lack of meaningful goals it forces everything into a zerg.

[Whiteagle]

It would be helpful to me if those in small and large outfits alike could comment on what they think would help make the game more enjoyable for them. Please think about the core issue and not symptoms of it. I already see you all want more tools for cross-outfit coordination. But at a more fundamental level...
Yes, Praise be to Malorn!

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
Unsure...
I know I'm not usually hurting for Resources, but I'm a conservative player who only splurges when they are in abundance.
Honestly, this might be a symptom of each faction having footholds on each Continent, allowing a player to switch to whichever one their Faction is doing best on to restock their Resources faster.

...This might have to wait until we get more Continents so we can see what the Intercontinental meta-game will be like.

* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
Probably, it would certainly keep a Continent from switching hands in the span of a half hour...

* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
YES!
I mean, it doesn't have to be that much, but it needs to be visible and rewarding enough that people will actually bother to secure Bases before moving on, maybe forty percent of what you'd get for the Base Capture.

* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
I don't think so, it's just the only viable counter measures to Vehicle Spam right now is to spam your own Vehicles.

I've been rather satisfied with the improvements to AA in the previous patch, but considering the number of horrid pilots I still see in the air and the number of other peoples' complaints, I would suggest increasing the Skyguard's projectile speed and maybe buffing the Phalanx Turrets up a bit.

Ground game is terrible though...
Even if you don't think one-man MBTs are an issue, there is still the problem that most Outpost are horribly designed from a defensive standpoint (Amerish is a bit better about this though, so I hope that was your doing:cool:) and can only stand up to a couple of vehicles at the most.

...Since you work on base design, have you been looking at this thread? (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=51193)
If not, I have a concept for a keep-style spawn building to replace those two door shacks that might help:

As such, I feel we should probably focus on more immediate means of strengthening bases...

...Namely, replacing those deathtrap sardine cans that are small spawn buildings!

Let's face it, they are probably the worst offenders when it comes to camping, offering no real protection against enemy forces while simultaneously being more of a hindrance to defense then an asset.

A couple of days ago, an idea thread on "fortifications" got me thinking about Platoon Leaders having access to deployable Spawn Buildings...

Now the viability of such a concept is debatable, but it did lead me to a small spawn building design that would be a VAST improvement over the current boxes.

It would be a mushroom-shaped structure, a squat tower from which the base can be defended from.

The trunk of the building itself has no entrances, just a set of two spawn tubes, equipment terminals, and a shielded elevator for going to and from the second floor.
The second floor itself would be an octangular arrangement of bastions and machicolations, roofed in such a way that only the outermost lips of the bastions would be open to overhead bombardment.
This would allow the spawn building itself to be used as a defensive hard-point as well as providing defenders four potential sheltered exits down through the machicolations...

...The only downside is that Light Assaults will be the only ones able to get back INTO the spawn after dropping, but this could be partially alleviated by external equipment terminals...

Thoughts?

...I call it the Alamo Mushroom.

* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)
I honestly don't think so...
If the Zerg is rolling, it's ROLLING!
Limiting deployment options is just going to hamper defenders trying to respond to a push.

This is a huge thing for me. What I would like to see: when the mission system arrives, somebody with certs in Leadership can create defend missions.

So l (as a guy who loves defending bases because I'm a camping bastard) get a queue of missions that say "Defend base X for Y period of time. Reward: Z experience".

I know there are other like-minded base defenders out there.
Hell yes, what ever happened to that wonderful mission system?

If we had something like what was described, where people could sign onto missions from a list, then it would be easy to automate the process for static base defense like in my old Garrison Duty idea. (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=47956)

The next issue would be the defensibility of bases. As they stand right now neither the attacker nor the defender really has an advantage. It just comes down to numbers. Bases should be designed with defense in mind.
Actually, as it stands right now the attackers will have a slight advantage due to taking the initiative...

Once someone finally notices their presence, they're more likely then not already entrenched as well as the defenders.
Hence my Alamo Mushroom idea, where the spawn building itself grant some high ground for the defenders to launch their counter attack from.

[p0intman]

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)

!
1) 100 fold yes.
2) 100 fold absolutely
3) yes, it also needs to be possible to actually defend vs swarms of vehicles. right now, xp wouldn't matter because of the overabundance of vehicle camping making defending impossible except to die from HE rounds to the face the moment i exit the spawn room.
4) absolutely
5) there needs to be a way to minimize the effect of zerg spam overall, if that means that spawn locations need to be tightened, im not sure.
Holy crap, something I agree with p0intman on. Tomorrow really is the end of the world.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

[Kail]

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations

Even if defending experience doesn't change, it definitely needs to be more visible. Maybe just every 5min & resecure pop up a notification with the +xp earned from defending so people see what they've accomplished.

I don't think increasing vehicle cost will reduce the spam that's problematic - that 40-80 people all pull something at the same time - and it would just wind up hurting the losing side even more.

As far as resources go, I have two big problems with the current system:

There is no incentive to fight on a continent you control little territory on

I know you can't just flip resources to be cross-continent as that breaks every time a new one is added. I don't think it's unsolvable though (maybe along the lines of dividing the amount acquired by the total available), and I hope it gets addressed somehow

Infantry resources are highly contested, and provide meaningful and useful perks that are still just "nice to haves" at the end of the day. But air/ground prevents their use entirely which on continents such as Amerish is a huge detriment

I wonder if acquisition of vehicles requiring 0 resources but something else about them does would help. Like the Zephyr costing a couple hundred resources but you can still grab a lib when your timer is up. Whatever it winds up being, lack of resources should reduce your force multiplier (like infantry), not remove it completely.



As for reduced deployment options, I'm not sure. What I honestly think is missing from the map, that hot spots don't provide, is the idea of "fronts" - like in all those WW2 documentaries with colored arrows showing how the armies are moving across the territories. Perhaps that, coupled with distance reduction on what spawns are available could help focus the flow of combat better.

You could even throw in sizing the arrows based on size of the push, and maybe even experience or resources bonuses for stopping a front's movement entirely (and a smaller amount for redirecting it). An attacking force winds up getting incentive to "follow the arrow" they're creating to prevent the defender's from getting bonuses, and defender's want to stop attacks.

[Fear The Amish]

Base defensibility in general would be a huge thing because right now as it is when i look at a map and we get hit by a zerg on any cont but amerish i go "ok can't defend here.. or here.. or here... ok! i gotta retreat back 3-4 bases against extreme numbers before i have a chance to take a 3x number foe. and usually it still is a lost cause because those bases (Amp station, New tech plants) can't be defended unless you have a zerg or at least a platoon + of your own on hand.

[evild]

Crappy base design/lack of interiors is a big part of the problem.

In PS1, in interiors, enemies were generally in front of you - being outnumbered just meant there was a large line up of them. In PS2 being outnumbered means you're completely surrounded and taking fire from all directions constantly. There is no area a small group can use organization to control.

Classic example: Consider a Tower of Death in PS1. A small group of good organized players holds against larger numbers. In PS1, you could hold the stairs because even if you're outnumbered, the enemy is in front of you, and you can potentially take many of them down.

In PS2 its like trying the same thing, except now there's windows everywhere, no cover, instagib grenades and light assaults on catwalks all around you and reaver spam from all directions.

Interfarms took this to the extreme, maybe a little too much but the point is the same.

Similarly, why do biolabs have the PS1 equivalent of hard-wired, shield protected routers from towers that lead just beside the generator. It makes it ridiculous for a group to tactically control an area.

Can you imagine how absurd this concept would have been for PS1? Think of the DS center on Cyssor (Gunuku), now add unkillable routers from both towers and go into to the gen with impenetrable shields for the attacker. Crazy. Why is it in PS2?

[Crator]

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)

So less resources per territory but greater gain to compensate? Allowing smaller groups to cover the areas that control the resource? That doesn't sound half bad if that's what you mean. Could give it a try to see if it helps.

* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?

* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?

* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)

I do think territory capture should be slowed down to an extent to allow for a better defensive response.

As for XP rewards, not certain. I don't really think they would help incentivise the player-base in helping resolve the overall problem per se. It probably wouldn't hurt though. What I wouldn't mind seeing in regards to XP is the dynamic XP gain like we had in PS1 (PS2 needs dynamic XP gain (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=51343)).

Yes, the PS1 spawn options I think would greatly help some of these issues. Give us bind points back. 1 base bind point, 1 AMS bind point.

* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?

Not certain about this one. The resource denial suggestion you 1st mentioned might help the players control this aspect.

[Sledgecrushr]

I think the size and scope of this game is difficult for a lot of people to get their heads around. Even if the DD have 350 people in the field fighting on one continent its still just a margin of the entire population on one continent. This game is bigger than the largest outfits.

[Fear The Amish]

I think the size and scope of this game is difficult for a lot of people to get their heads around. Even if the DD have 350 people in the field fighting on one continent its still just a margin of the entire population on one continent. This game is bigger than the largest outfits.

While yes it is a small percentage but add in Communications and tactics and it is effective well outside of its numbers alone.

[Javelin]

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)



1. Maybe. Honestly I feel the balance is a good middle ground between players that focus on a single playstyle and empire benefits of holding territory. That said small outfits should have goals to accomplish in enemy territory if outright capture is impossible, such as disabling base benefits or reducing the amount of resources it provides.

2. On larger installations yes. The smaller ones I feel are in a good place.

3. Yes. Double what it is currently would not be out of line. Also on a successful defense that territory should provide a bonus resource deposit of that particular type. This should provide small but tangible benefits of defending when "out popped".

4. No, Again I feel the balance is a good middle ground between players that focus on a single playstyle and empire benefits of holding territory. And organized (not necessarily large) groups have shown that zerg tank columns or air groups can be destroyed with good tactics (good mine placement, burster nests, close-in AV weapons.)

5. I think more options for smaller groups will be easier to find when more continents open up. A specific mechanic isn't needed, just more places to fight and defend.

[Malorn]

Regarding PS1 interiors, I think we forget how vehicle zerged the courtyards of bases were. I remember many a time I was camped into the base or tower, unable to get out without tanks and hovering reavers shooting into doorways the moment they were opened. It's just as bad of a situation as PS2, with two key differences being that in PS1 you didn't need to control the exterior in order to have control of the base, and the spawn room was near the control point. In PS2 you are required to leave the confines of the interior and move out to exterior areas (like generators) and secure them. There is no safe haven for defenders against vehicles. Once you lose control of the exterior the battle is over.

So when I see "undefendable" I believe it is because:
1) There are objectives in the exterior of the facility which can be influenced by the presence of vehicles.
2) The defender spawn is far from the capture point, meaning the defenders need to cross no man's land to get there while the attackers can park an AMS right on top of the point.

To illustrate, see bio labs - they are the exception and actually are defensible because the two things I listed above are not true. The spawn is very close to the points, and the dome protects the area from vehicle influence. Bio labs are actually very close to PS1-style facilities and have the same rocket-spam on the landing pads as you saw in PS1 facility doors after the courtyard got overrun.

[Whiteagle]

So when I see "undefendable" I believe it is because:
1) There are objectives in the exterior of the facility which can be influenced by the presence of vehicles.
2) The defender spawn is far from the capture point, meaning the defenders need to cross no man's land to get there while the attackers can park an AMS right on top of the point.

To illustrate, see bio labs - they are the exception and actually are defensible because the two things I listed above are not true. The spawn is very close to the points, and the dome protects the area from vehicle influence. Bio labs are actually very close to PS1-style facilities and have the same rocket-spam on the landing pads as you saw in PS1 facility doors after the courtyard got overrun.
HAIL MALORN!!! The Dev who actually listens AND provides feedback!

Yes, Tech Plants were also this way when defenders could teleport into them from the spawn and the one Shield Control Generator protected everything...

Problem was that, unlike Bio Labs with their satellite teleporters giving attackers up to five separate and spread out points of entry, Tech Labs really only had three real entry paths and two of them were for Light Assault only...

Thus they became meat-grinding kill-farming fest for anyone who could hold together more then half a Platoon in one.

Now I personally don't like the Bio Lab teleporters themselves just because they give the enemy a free safe zone to stage from right next to major objectives and require "active defense" in order to neutralize, but there locations as points-of-entry are great.
If possible, I'd redesign the legs of the base to be hollow tunnels leading up to a "basement" right beneath the dome that is accessed from the current teleporter buildings.
The teleporters themselves could be moved to somewhere in this "dome basement," or a landing in the legs.

For Tech Labs, I'd keep the external Vehicle Bay Shield Generators, but make them more accessible from the Main building through catwalks coming down off the first roof.
This would not only grant access to that level for attackers other then light assault, but also provide a reason for defenders to go up there by giving them a path that avoids getting run over by traffic (enemy or otherwise).
I'd internalise the spawn by placing it right over where the SCU Shield Generator is, make its exits either drop you down on the far ends of the Generators floor or lift you up to the first roof, move the SCU back inside the main building next to the unshielded entrances, and have a teleporter that connects the old spawn to the new one.
While this will lead to spawn camping, it will mostly be Infantry based, plus the teleporter and roof exits will allow smart defenders to flank said campers.

...I've got less ideas about how to fix Amp Stations, but I'd be happy to write those up as well if you'd want them.

[Punker]

IMHO the time to kill, and the base layout plays a lot in the power that these zergfits have.

The 3 infamous zergfits (not mentioning any names, 1 per empire though i'm sure anyone could guess who they were) were notoriously bad at PS1, strategically and skill wise. They would do exactly what they do in PS2, just drop numbers onto a position and then swarm around like ants until they covered enough of the area.

The difference is, because of the base design (defensible choke points, and the fact you can't park a tank outside of a spawn door) and the TTK being significantly higher, more organised and skilled outfits with a smaller number of players were still very effective against the zergfits.

The most frustrating thing for me is that the people "commanding" their zerg outfit are also notorious for making dumb decisions, moving the bulk of their force to empty bases or over extending on the map - this hurts the entire empire. While the smaller outfits have little support facing the main force of the enemy, it generally takes 30+mins for these guys to realise that their team of 200 are only fighting 20 guys, and then slowly meander back to the frontline to TK and stare at the ground.

[Kracken]

The more I read this, the more I dread if anything here limiting massive scale gets implemented.

You want smaller more controlled battles where your smaller group feels larger?

BF3 (http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3) There you go it has caps for you. 64 Player Multiplayer available on PC; 24 Player Multiplayer available on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

Or

Call of Duty®: Black Ops 2 (http://www.callofduty.com/blackops2/features/zombies#col5) features new and extensive Stats-tracking, as well as improved Leaderboards for bragging rights. The new skill-based matchmaking system will allow players of the same skill levels to be teamed-up to fight Zombies in public game modes.

I've never played those and will most likely not ever. What attracts me to PS2 is the very thing most of you here are attacking, massive scale and organization. I really cannot believe the posts I'm seeing from the folks posting them. A focus on small unit team play is not the focus, read the official site.

Also for anyone to be clamoring for change now after two months is really, really short sighted and is coming off as self motivating. Look at this way, everything promoted about PS2 is about Large Massive conflicts and the game has won 30 AWARDS IN 2012 already, look at the official planetside website website (http://www.planetside2.com/overview).

This thread is unfortunate. It should be locked/deleted and replaced with what future dynamics/objectives could be implemented for smaller outfits. This is just a crusade against forces larger and more organized or less organized in disguise.

[SGOniell]

On Jaeger there is one NC outfit in particular that just pisses me off. Constant /orders spam from like 3 of their guys letting people know they're looking for new players. Its annoying as all hell. It really irks me that they use /orders to do it instead of yell. Half the time I want to reach through my computer and smack them repeatedly if I could. That is the only reason I hate larger outfits, all that spam. I run a small squad sized outfit and feel the spam is absolutely not cool. Leave it to the forums or if people ask in-game. Also, maybe adjust the user agreement to deem that soliciting and do away with any and all soliciting.

[Wahooo]

The more I read this, the more I dread if anything here limiting massive scale gets implemented.

You want smaller more controlled battles where your smaller group feels larger?

Not a PS1 vet are you?

You've kinda missed the point of the complaints in this thread. What is desired is adjustments to the system/base layouts/meta game that allow smaller WELL ORGANIZED outfits to be very effective, or simply to have a roll at all.

PS1 had massive battles as well, and the zerg and zerg herders were the main driver in base/continent capture. BUT smaller organized outfits had a HUGE roll and for those that were in them and fought against them it was a great mini-game in the larger scheme. A gen hold or base drain not at random, but at a very important base that happened to be away from the main zerg and how it was responded to could absolutely turn the tide one way or another.
Right now the way PS2 plays this aspect is lacking. Winning and losing appear to be related to nothing but pure numbers on the battlefield. And the elements that did seem there were removed or neutered. Tech-plants were ripe for a small organized outfit to swing a battle in defense OR offense. A shield diffuser sundy with a coordinated outfit of decent players could easily crack a tech plant long enough for the zerg to break in, EVEN with the "exploited" AMS locations like upstairs next to the control point. It just didn't happen often.

Nobody wants to nerf the massive battles we just want 2 things really.
1) Base/Continent capture have SOME tactical aspect other than overwhelming numbers.
2) A game impacting roll for smaller 10-30 man, well organized outfits.

[Sledgecrushr]

Not a PS1 vet are you?

You've kinda missed the point of the complaints in this thread. What is desired is adjustments to the system/base layouts/meta game that allow smaller WELL ORGANIZED outfits to be very effective, or simply to have a roll at all.

Let me reiterate what I see on twitch tv every night happening on Matthison. Watch Sujieun and his two squads on his twitch channel and learn how to operate a small detachment in planetside 2.

[Hamma]

BF3 (http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3) There you go it has caps for you. 64 Player Multiplayer available on PC; 24 Player Multiplayer available on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

This is not constructive and flat out bullshit. Don't bother participating in this thread further.

PS1 had the things we are looking for. Don't make dumb blanket statements. The thread has been constructive thus far let's keep it that way.

[Hamma]

The problem with bases (gen rooms in particular) is there are far to many windows and they are impossible to hold long term. Almost every single building in PlanetSide 2 can have a vehicle influence the inside and that just doesn't make sense.

[Hamma]

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)


Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Hard to say.. worth a try.
Yes.

You should require a minium number of players to capture almost anything. One guy should not be able to start capturing empty frontline outposts and pull forces to where he is as he rides away on an ATV.

[evild]

To illustrate, see bio labs - they are the exception and actually are defensible because the two things I listed above are not true. The spawn is very close to the points, and the dome protects the area from vehicle influence. Bio labs are actually very close to PS1-style facilities and have the same rocket-spam on the landing pads as you saw in PS1 facility doors after the courtyard got overrun.

Biolabs are all backwards. You have exterior spawn points that once taken are difficult to recapture, that have telepads that lead right into the base, as close as the central spawn. A sunderer beside the exterior telepad is just as effective as the main spawn room. its the equivalent of a PS1 AMS router, but the router is unkillable and the far end is shield protected.

There's no 'progression' on the interior of the biolab like PS1. For PS1 think of an interlink, first you fight for the lobby, maybe takes a push, then stairs , or back tunnel to secure rooms on the level down, break the bd, then you have the choice of subbasement/gen or spawns.

Ps2 biolab is very open, walk in the air pad, and you've got ~180 deg of people shooting at you, not to mention all the rooftops. So there's no way to organize and cover angles, its just run as fast as you can and shoot people in the back and spam grenades. There's no BD holds, no lobby holds, no gen rush and hold the gen area, no hack to delay spawn timers and cut off benefits. AMS+Telepad is just as fast as the main spawn. Its just 'hey lets run around really fast and shoot each other and spawn back in real fast because there's no real depth to the game so we have to make it 'fast paced' to distract people from the lack of anything actually interesting to do.'

[Wahooo]

There's no 'progression' '

I've been working in my head on a big long post but so many threads right now are coming together on this subject I wasn't sure where to put it, but base defense/capture boil down to this point. And right now PS2 base attack and defense this is the case. There looks to be an attempt at it but it missed and needs a severe overhaul on many levels at all bases.

[p0intman]

malorn, tldr of this thread:

give us targets that are fit for 1-2 squads or so that do not subject us to the horrible tank/liberator spam and zergbattlefieldside that are also meaningful and fun, and on as many bases as is possible.

couple of questions to keep in mind when messing with terrain/bases:
"if i bring 40-100 guys to this fight, does it completely shut down the fun here?"
"can i effectively lock down any chance of defenders being able to defend, either through spawn camping with libs or tanks or by setting up a crossfire on a telepad, in such a way that defenders stand no chance?"

if the answer to either of those is yes, at any time, you're doing something wrong.

[Kracken]

This is not constructive and flat out bullshit. Don't bother participating in this thread further.

PS1 had the things we are looking for. Don't make dumb blanket statements. The thread has been constructive thus far let's keep it that way.

Why do you selectively quote and then threaten? All I did was search FPS and look for games with objectives built for less players then quote the websites. How is that bullshit?

[robocpf1]

Malorn, I'll throw out some examples I've found, hopefully they'll get the creative juices flowing. Without delving too deeply into "what the problem is", because people have nailed that, here are just some things from PS1 that made small outfits thrive, and a couple of "new" ideas.

1) Towers. In PS1, a "Tower" was either in the middle of nowhere and nobody fought there, was in the middle of a main thoroughfare for vehicles (like the one between Aja and Bomazi, it was the focus of some intense armor fights) or were "tied" to a base. They were important. You had to have the tower to take the base 90% of the time. In PS2, there are too many different outposts (and four different spawns per facility, one of which is a "tower"). Small outfits used to excel at denying these and starving off the large outfits that were trying to take the base. Without the tower, large outfits couldn't push in, and the assault would fizzle. In PS2, this situation doesn't happen.

2) Base draining / NTU. A way to hit a base that isn't linked. Imagine on Indar if a small outfit snuck behind VS lines and either captured Hvar, killing our tech, or neutralized it, causing nobody to have it but now it has to be both recaptured and filled with fuel. It doesn't matter if you're able to hold it very long, you've just killed our ability to pull tanks, and that both gives you a great fight and helps your empire. If our empire doesn't respond promptly enough, you can go back and kill us even more. This also stops the zerg from jumping so quickly. If we have to actually stop and fix what we break, defenders have more time to prepare. Usually, when I get ousted from a base, by the time I spawn at the next base up there is already a Sunderer deploying and a large tank force rolling in because the zerg doesn't have to wait. Let's make them wait a couple of minutes.

3) Generators were linked to the benefit, not to a shield. Gen holds were a huge draw to small outfits. You go and kill the gen of the only interlink on a continent, everyone's swarming to you. You might hold it long enough for your empire's larger force to push into their base though. Without that radar, their forces are weaker. You could kill tech or their dropship repair benefit, too. Nobody really killed gens for the biolab or amp benefit, but if they were more important that could work.

4) Cave Modules were a force multiplier. I think I can reliably say that when SOE released core combat, even though the BFRs weren't great, the mods you could harvest from caves made small outfits even more of a threat. They also gave small outfits yet another target - take out the enemy's mods so they have less benefits, or even better, STEAL the enemy's mods and take them as your own.

5) Make-Your-Own-Objective! In PS1, you could manipulate the lattice and the spawning mechanism to sort of pick an objective that wasn't an objective. The best way I know how to describe this is a "Medical Room Hold". You get a squad of guys and take the medical room in a PS1 bio lab and make a nuisance of yourselves. This is a base on the front line, people are spawning, and you and your squad are killing them all as they try to run out the door. Eventually the other empire notices and rushes you, but you've just delayed their vehicle reinforcements by several minutes and caused a pretty big diversion. Loads of exp as well. Or, if the NC is about to cap a TR LLU...maybe a small VS outfit comes in and camps the capture area so they can't. That was always fun.

6) A dynamic, mobile target - this is a new idea. Imagine a cross between an LLU and the rabbit event, except now instead of it being a rare event, it's up every few minutes. Small outfits move faster and with more precision, so how about a big blinking target that gives the empire some sort of benefit and the outfit exp if they capture it take it back to a certain base? It constantly changes where it spawns and the target base. Alert, enemy radar module located at Scarred Mesa. Capture it and bring it to Hvar, and we'll be able to see the enemy's radar signatures for the next 10 minutes!

7) Non-vehicle areas. A fortress where infantry reign supreme. The best footsoldiers survive. No tank shells or Daltons, no barrages from Lightnings, no roadkills.

8) LLUs / Capture the Flag - a faster way to take a base. Currently all base captures are by "king of the hill". I think many people have voiced their support for this and the devs have even mentioned they want to have more varied capture mechanics, I'm just noting it here.

9) Resource scarcity - I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm never low on resources. Ever. Unless I pull a tank and then immediately want to pull another one, I don't even keep up with how many resources I have. My infantry resources are important to me so I can keep refilling my supply of revive grenades and C4. Do we still get resources for fighting in an area? So if we fight at Ceres Biotech, which has infantry resources, and we get a kill, do we still get resources? Maybe that should be removed and we should only get resources during the "deposit" ticks, instead of accumulating them through fighting. That would give specific territories more value.

[p0intman]

Why do you selectively quote and then threaten? All I did was search FPS and look for games with objectives built for less players then quote the websites. How is that bullshit?
telling us to go play another game like battlefield is ironic given that we're trying to get away from battlefield gameplay. The irony is just... LOL.

think on this: you're telling us to GTFO a franchise we've effectively called 'home' for the last decade or so now. would you ever dare go to someones home and do the same?

dont do it here. I'm frankly tempted to tell you to go back to WoW/LoL/BF3/CoD/AoC or whereever the fuck it is you were before PS2 came along, but im being nice for once.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I think there's another thing people are forgetting:

Fast re-secures... replacement of Hack and Hold with the tug of war (and every other capture system PS2 has had throughout its run) has made resecures impossible. In PS1 it was possible for a squad of competent individuals to fight their way to the CC and reset the hack completely, buying more time for friendly zerglings to show up and win the day.

That's just not possible anymore... you may take a point back, but it does very little to slow down the enemy zerg and has very little effect on the capture bar. The old fast re-secure outfits have been reduced to farming the hell out of the periphery of the zerg, they've just got nothing else to do in the current paradigm.

[p0intman]

I think there's another thing people are forgetting:

Fast re-secures... replacement of Hack and Hold with the tug of war (and every other capture system PS2 has had throughout its run) has made resecures impossible. In PS1 it was possible for a squad of competent individuals to fight their way to the CC and reset the hack completely, buying more time for friendly zerglings to show up and win the day.

That's just not possible anymore... you may take a point back, but it does very little to slow down the enemy zerg and has very little effect on the capture bar. The old fast re-secure outfits have been reduced to farming the hell out of the periphery of the zerg, they've just got nothing else to do in the current paradigm.

and every farm we find, SOE nerfs the ever loving shit out of, making the problem worse. its almost akin to saying they don't want us, sometimes. i kind of feel like its almost like they dont want competent, fast moving, and highly tactical outfits. they want zergfits.

i hate to make the analogy, but thanks to Thannis...

http://i.imgur.com/bVa4p.jpg

I'm not sorry, that is how it is.

[Graywolves]

I've had lots of awesome moments where a squad of guys gets the attachment of a huge amount of the other empire or for some reason they let us ghost hack them...

But ultimately the moments are fleeting and you can hardly make it into something more than "awesome! They sent 50 guys to kill 7 of us!"


The way the metagame is set up you can only bash heads at the front line for strategic assets.

The terrain is very awkward. It gets wide and open with no cover and then it gets restricting and bottlenecked. A lot of hills deny infantry to climb over the top or meneuver into flanking positions as well as vehicles.



There's a lot of room to expand upon and touch up. Many different factors go into why small team organized gameplay isn't as rewarding as grabbing 10 squads and pointing them at a target.


For some reason it feels like they forgot trees exist or only look at them as something purely aesthetic. Right now the game pretty much revolves around farming or blitzkrieging locations and there's a horrible transition from location to location. The empty expanse from location to location makes field combat rare and areas harder to defend.

[KaskaMatej]

IMO, for base defence XP bonus, there should be a flat bonus, not percentage.

Instead of that measly 15% if you're defending a facility, you'd need to kill 60 people to get the same amount of XP you'd get for capping said facility (1000 XP). Yes, I know, there are other actions you get (resupply, revive, heal, spot, repair, kill streaks) but getting 60 kills anywhere else but in a Biolab is nigh impossible, even if you're in an ESF.

It also makes repairing turrets more rewarding (still useless because turret are squishy and weak) but at least risk/reward will be more beneficial to defenders trying to repair. It would also make kills be less important, making support classes more sufficient at doing just that, support.

Then, even at small and large outposts there would be a real, real defence. They would just need to make outposts less spawn-room-campable. IMO.

[typhaon]

I'll probably echo a lot of what has already been said...

PS2 is a larger game. Organization is always going to be advantageous... so larger populations are just going to lead to larger organizations. This will be true no matter the allowed size of outfits.

Smaller outfits can certainly be effective - you just have to adjust your goals. No - a squad or two won't be able to hold anything against the zerg. I think you're just going to have to adjust your goals and expectations.

2 squads can certainly be very effective in a massive fight. 25 ESFs show up - that's going to swing balance of the air battle REALLY quickly. 25 MAX rush into a base... that's going to change the situation. 25 infantry drop on to the roof a Tech Plant - you'll secure the balcony, quickly.

If you don't want to dive into the main battle... 2 squads can easily secure surrounding territories, cutting off the enemy.

Now - I think you're certainly right about bases not being defendable. I'd say in most cases, it's actually better to NOT be in the base. At least when you're not in the base, you can try and dodge TANK/LIB/ESF spam... Serious, serious problems that need to be addressed...

Other than certain instances where there are extreme skill/gear differences between groups of players - raw numbers are going to always be the major deciding factor in fights. That's just a reality of war in games and IRL.

[Sledgecrushr]

malorn, tldr of this thread:

give us targets that are fit for 1-2 squads or so that do not subject us to the horrible tank/liberator spam and zergbattlefieldside that are also meaningful and fun, and on as many bases as is possible.

couple of questions to keep in mind when messing with terrain/bases:
"if i bring 40-100 guys to this fight, does it completely shut down the fun here?"
"can i effectively lock down any chance of defenders being able to defend, either through spawn camping with libs or tanks or by setting up a crossfire on a telepad, in such a way that defenders stand no chance?"

if the answer to either of those is yes, at any time, you're doing something wrong.

You do understan that 100 guys might seem like a lot, but really isnt a lot of people in planetside 2. And if the massive scale of this game makes your two squad outfit feel insignificant then youre just playing the game wrong. I know youre playing the game wrong because I have seen over and over how sucessful a small outfit can be in planetside 2.

[Kracken]

telling us to go play another game like battlefield is ironic given that we're trying to get away from battlefield gameplay. The irony is just... LOL.

think on this: you're telling us to GTFO a franchise we've effectively called 'home' for the last decade or so now. would you ever dare go to someones home and do the same?

dont do it here. I'm frankly tempted to tell you to go back to WoW/LoL/BF3/CoD/AoC or whereever the fuck it is you were before PS2 came along, but im being nice for once.

I came from SWG. Never really played anything else but I have been testing SoE titles since 2003 and been a community volunteer.

I don't know who you are or what you cal "home", what I do know is PS2 due to it's scale is the only shooter I've ever even been remotely interested in. So this thread is basically saying it's scale is too big, change it to suit smaller outfits.

You folks have some anger issues if this is you being nice, you need to drink more man or get some lovin'.

[CFFluddyBunny]

PS2 is designed to be a social game - similar to WOW. People join the game and stay because of the relationships they develop long after their interest in the game has waned. PS1 allowed "lone wolf" players much more scope. I used to play a cloaker that drove an AMS - I'd take my spawnbuggy to a suitable location and spend my time dropping mines and setting up spits and still felt part of the overall gameplay. PS2 is a lot of action and nice lighting effects but unless you are part of a group that sense of involvement is, to me, missing.

PS1 had a lot off issues with elitist outfits and people who forgot it was a GAME. I'm pretty sure that once PS2 is more established they'll be a place for small outfits who can specialise (like the old gal drops and max crashes)

Perhaps another window on the map showing a live update of the overall strategy for the cont could be introduced so rather than people instant actioning they could have an indication of where the thrust is. I know experienced people will be able to judge that for themselves but the old CR5 globals "going to xxx next can we have some AMSs moved there" did work.

[Dragonskin]

They could remove some of the zerging effect if the deploy button was removed from hot spots and outfits... players in general ......actively had to travel to the location. Then you might have small fights a long the way more often instead of people just deploying to 1 location... stay there until they can deploy to the next location.. all just bouncing around. There are already tons of ways to get to a spot on the map. All bases have sunderers and flashes now.

[ringring]

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
I doubt it. If resources prevented people from rolling an armour column I think the only response would be frustration and as it making territories small would remove some 'structure' to the progress of the continent, if you know what I mean.
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
Absolutely. But it needs to go hand in hand with other changes, for instance is a 'team' attacks an outpost and forces the defenders back into the spawns within 2 minutes but then has to wait for another 10 for the hack, well I don't think anyone would be happy. Similarly if a group is defending a hacked outpost at the cap point and all get taking out by a passing lib wouldn't be fun either. In short, if we want extended fighting over hacks/resecures, which I think we do the outpost and bases need more defensibility.
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
Yes - I think there's enough XP available but part of it at least needs to be more visible. e.g there is an xp bonus like now (perhaps reduced a tad) but there's also a success in your face bonus at the end. Alternatively, have xp proportional to activity within the area a la PS1, which did work.
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
Resources don't control vehicle usage really. All the will happen is that people will pull vehicles as now but then get frustrated when the resrouces run out. I thing an easy fix is to nerf the main gun and buff the secondary - the PS1 magrider is a good model to follow.
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)
I don't think so, I think spawning options are fine.


I am a leader of outcasters which has a membership of a little over 200 now and we generally run 2-3 squads during the evening.

[Hosp]

My 2 Cents:

With the current state of the Game:

- No Meta-Game
- Indefensible Facilities
- Little to no Death Penalty (as in increasing spawn timer)
- Lack of modifiable Inventory (Not huge, but it really helped separate a Special Ops player from a zergling)
- Vehicle Campable Spawn Points

All of the above are, in my eyes, are a contributing factor to the lack of ability for smaller outfits to be effective. As a result, we (see sig), have been forced into special ops where we can still move faster than the zerg, get ahead of them and soften up if not begin to take the next objective to speed the zerg progress. Currently, that's the only significant operation Spec.Ops. outfits can do and be effective.

Now, I know the game is still in Open Beta. (lets be honest, there's no beating around the bush on it). So I'm giving it till Feb. or March till I drop it like a bad habit. But if that ends up being the case, PS1 going F2P may see a
resurgence as all the vet outfits go back to continue the glory days leaving PS2 a ghost town.

They need to fix most of the above and put the grind back into prying an enemy out of a base. Winning the long battles, be they in base or field, are what made PS1 fun, because around those long battles, were numerous smaller battles as Spec.Ops. fought in and around the lines trying to gain their empire the advantage.

PS1 wasn't perfect, but it was/is certainly more complete.

[Hamma]

Why do you selectively quote and then threaten? All I did was search FPS and look for games with objectives built for less players then quote the websites. How is that bullshit?

I came from SWG. Never really played anything else but I have been testing SoE titles since 2003 and been a community volunteer.

I don't know who you are or what you cal "home", what I do know is PS2 due to it's scale is the only shooter I've ever even been remotely interested in. So this thread is basically saying it's scale is too big, change it to suit smaller outfits.

You folks have some anger issues if this is you being nice, you need to drink more man or get some lovin'.

Honestly the issue is we have seen this "GO play BF3 COD __INSERTSHITTYFPSHERE__" for the past year and a half we have been talking about PlanetSide 2 on this forum and it isn't constructive. Many of us are pretty tired of seeing this canned response. :lol:

Sounds like you just did it by mistake not knowing.. it's all good. Jump into the thread!

[Hamma]

Malorn, I'll throw out some examples I've found, hopefully they'll get the creative juices flowing. Without delving too deeply into "what the problem is", because people have nailed that, here are just some things from PS1 that made small outfits thrive, and a couple of "new" ideas.

1) Towers. In PS1, a "Tower" was either in the middle of nowhere and nobody fought there, was in the middle of a main thoroughfare for vehicles (like the one between Aja and Bomazi, it was the focus of some intense armor fights) or were "tied" to a base. They were important. You had to have the tower to take the base 90% of the time. In PS2, there are too many different outposts (and four different spawns per facility, one of which is a "tower"). Small outfits used to excel at denying these and starving off the large outfits that were trying to take the base. Without the tower, large outfits couldn't push in, and the assault would fizzle. In PS2, this situation doesn't happen.

2) Base draining / NTU. A way to hit a base that isn't linked. Imagine on Indar if a small outfit snuck behind VS lines and either captured Hvar, killing our tech, or neutralized it, causing nobody to have it but now it has to be both recaptured and filled with fuel. It doesn't matter if you're able to hold it very long, you've just killed our ability to pull tanks, and that both gives you a great fight and helps your empire. If our empire doesn't respond promptly enough, you can go back and kill us even more. This also stops the zerg from jumping so quickly. If we have to actually stop and fix what we break, defenders have more time to prepare. Usually, when I get ousted from a base, by the time I spawn at the next base up there is already a Sunderer deploying and a large tank force rolling in because the zerg doesn't have to wait. Let's make them wait a couple of minutes.

3) Generators were linked to the benefit, not to a shield. Gen holds were a huge draw to small outfits. You go and kill the gen of the only interlink on a continent, everyone's swarming to you. You might hold it long enough for your empire's larger force to push into their base though. Without that radar, their forces are weaker. You could kill tech or their dropship repair benefit, too. Nobody really killed gens for the biolab or amp benefit, but if they were more important that could work.

4) Cave Modules were a force multiplier. I think I can reliably say that when SOE released core combat, even though the BFRs weren't great, the mods you could harvest from caves made small outfits even more of a threat. They also gave small outfits yet another target - take out the enemy's mods so they have less benefits, or even better, STEAL the enemy's mods and take them as your own.

5) Make-Your-Own-Objective! In PS1, you could manipulate the lattice and the spawning mechanism to sort of pick an objective that wasn't an objective. The best way I know how to describe this is a "Medical Room Hold". You get a squad of guys and take the medical room in a PS1 bio lab and make a nuisance of yourselves. This is a base on the front line, people are spawning, and you and your squad are killing them all as they try to run out the door. Eventually the other empire notices and rushes you, but you've just delayed their vehicle reinforcements by several minutes and caused a pretty big diversion. Loads of exp as well. Or, if the NC is about to cap a TR LLU...maybe a small VS outfit comes in and camps the capture area so they can't. That was always fun.

6) A dynamic, mobile target - this is a new idea. Imagine a cross between an LLU and the rabbit event, except now instead of it being a rare event, it's up every few minutes. Small outfits move faster and with more precision, so how about a big blinking target that gives the empire some sort of benefit and the outfit exp if they capture it take it back to a certain base? It constantly changes where it spawns and the target base. Alert, enemy radar module located at Scarred Mesa. Capture it and bring it to Hvar, and we'll be able to see the enemy's radar signatures for the next 10 minutes!

7) Non-vehicle areas. A fortress where infantry reign supreme. The best footsoldiers survive. No tank shells or Daltons, no barrages from Lightnings, no roadkills.

8) LLUs / Capture the Flag - a faster way to take a base. Currently all base captures are by "king of the hill". I think many people have voiced their support for this and the devs have even mentioned they want to have more varied capture mechanics, I'm just noting it here.

9) Resource scarcity - I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm never low on resources. Ever. Unless I pull a tank and then immediately want to pull another one, I don't even keep up with how many resources I have. My infantry resources are important to me so I can keep refilling my supply of revive grenades and C4. Do we still get resources for fighting in an area? So if we fight at Ceres Biotech, which has infantry resources, and we get a kill, do we still get resources? Maybe that should be removed and we should only get resources during the "deposit" ticks, instead of accumulating them through fighting. That would give specific territories more value.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Excellent post robo - great stuff there all of it.

[Punker]

100% endorse robo's post. Hit the nail on the head.

[PredatorFour]

Yeh great post that, i`d even say bring back hack and hold for a capture mechanic. Have the time similiar to what it was in the cave cc`s. This would help the smaller outfits do last second resecures again!

[LexDecon]

I lead a small outfit, we have literally as it sits roughly 40 members, at any given time we are likely to only have half a squad on.

First I agree with Robo's post. Second we've hit a wall playing PS2 as a small outfit.

We don't want to be a big outfit, we hate dealing with zergfits.

We've taken 8 guys and dropped into a territory and sat on it held it for as long as we can. Sometimes its a little under 15 min. other times its over three hours, most the time its a mass of zerg tanks and liberators that push us out. We are infantry. We fight like infantry, work like infantry and often times are zerged to death.

Its frustrating as it sits right now in PS2, small outfits do not get any benefits, objectives are seriously set to benefit zergfits or the larger 100+ plus outfits. Tech plants are good in some regards because we can go in. Hit a generator, sit on that generator and defend it from being repaired while the base is captured. Small objective oriented situations are needed. The over all "cap the base" let the zergs work it, give Small outfits the ability to move on a single objective and benefit from it as a group.

Another thing we are irritated with. We are foot, ground pounders, infantry. Lately we've had to start running tanks. because of the zerg of vehicles, and air. We want to play infantry, and have set up some awesome ambushes, that slow down the zerg but seriously with how fast people can just go and respawn another tank, or ESF, its kind of pointless. We'll keep doing it because its what we do. but tactical faill backs are getting old under over whelming zerg of vehicles just because they can.

[Sledgecrushr]

I lead a small outfit, we have literally as it sits roughly 40 members, at any given time we are likely to only have half a squad on.

First I agree with Robo's post. Second we've hit a wall playing PS2 as a small outfit.

We don't want to be a big outfit, we hate dealing with zergfits.

We've taken 8 guys and dropped into a territory and sat on it held it for as long as we can. Sometimes its a little under 15 min. other times its over three hours, most the time its a mass of zerg tanks and liberators that push us out. We are infantry. We fight like infantry, work like infantry and often times are zerged to death.

Its frustrating as it sits right now in PS2, small outfits do not get any benefits, objectives are seriously set to benefit zergfits or the larger 100+ plus outfits. Tech plants are good in some regards because we can go in. Hit a generator, sit on that generator and defend it from being repaired while the base is captured. Small objective oriented situations are needed. The over all "cap the base" let the zergs work it, give Small outfits the ability to move on a single objective and benefit from it as a group.

Another thing we are irritated with. We are foot, ground pounders, infantry. Lately we've had to start running tanks. because of the zerg of vehicles, and air. We want to play infantry, and have set up some awesome ambushes, that slow down the zerg but seriously with how fast people can just go and respawn another tank, or ESF, its kind of pointless. We'll keep doing it because its what we do. but tactical faill backs are getting old under over whelming zerg of vehicles just because they can.

Your lack of tactical flexibility and unwillingness to work with others in a massive fps=fail

[WreckedM]

The singular killer app for PS2 is its massive scale combat. It is the feature that SOE correctly promotes as something no other game can do. Massive battles require massive armies. Massive armies produce massive outfits. Nobody should imagine SOE will walk away from their best 'feature' and that means the big outfits are here to stay.

Getting back to the OP's original question, with a twist -- How can a small outfit have fun in a game that is essentially designed for the massive?

Small outfits by nature are more highly coordinated, can be highly specialized, and have the ability to react much more rapidly compared to a large outfit. SOE can tweak game systems that allow small units to leverage these attributes.

- Faster, but lower seat capacity air/land transports.
- Difficult to access small bases and/or undesirable to visit from a large outfit perspective (ie. away from the front lines)
- Sub-meta-game. Give the small units something to fight for (& over).

Here's an off-the-cuff scenario: Remote single hex bases periodically randomly flip control to neutral and spawn a special resource. This resource is granted to only one squad from the faction that wins control based on total squad contribution. Slow control ticks. No spawn rooms. Get in fast, fight like it matters (bring a medic or 2!), dominate other fast small teams, win a resource that lets you do something cool.

That's only one scenario. The key is finding ways to cater to a small team's natural strengths.

A few other unrelated things that SOE could do to help small outfits
- Create an alliance system
- Enable custom voice channels (to support cross-alliance comms)

http://sig.planetside-universe.com/WreckedM.png (http://www.planetside-universe.com/character.php?stats=WreckedM)

[Hosp]

Sledge, that's uncalled for.

[Saintlycow]

Your lack of tactical flexibility and unwillingness to work with others in a massive fps=fail

I think what he's saying is that the game relies to much on numbers, and not enough on squad skill and tactics.

Winning in this game is throwing more men at the objective than the other team.


I'm not saying 12 people should normally be able to beat a platoon, but with skill and organization, they should atleast pose a challenge to 1/2 a platoon.

Add in actually defensible bases, which should require at the minimum insanely good tactics, or a 2 to 1 advantage to capture.

[ringring]

Biolabs are all backwards. You have exterior spawn points that once taken are difficult to recapture, that have telepads that lead right into the base, as close as the central spawn. A sunderer beside the exterior telepad is just as effective as the main spawn room. its the equivalent of a PS1 AMS router, but the router is unkillable and the far end is shield protected.

There's no 'progression' on the interior of the biolab like PS1. For PS1 think of an interlink, first you fight for the lobby, maybe takes a push, then stairs , or back tunnel to secure rooms on the level down, break the bd, then you have the choice of subbasement/gen or spawns.

Ps2 biolab is very open, walk in the air pad, and you've got ~180 deg of people shooting at you, not to mention all the rooftops. So there's no way to organize and cover angles, its just run as fast as you can and shoot people in the back and spam grenades. There's no BD holds, no lobby holds, no gen rush and hold the gen area, no hack to delay spawn timers and cut off benefits. AMS+Telepad is just as fast as the main spawn. Its just 'hey lets run around really fast and shoot each other and spawn back in real fast because there's no real depth to the game so we have to make it 'fast paced' to distract people from the lack of anything actually interesting to do.'
No, you've got the tactics of attacking a BIO Lab wrong. I've just come from a 40 minute fight for a Bio Lab and it wasn't a farm for the defenders (I think it was pretty even), we used tactics, we had our objectives and there was progression.

Bio Labs demonstrate the type of thing that every major base should. It's hard to take and once overrun hard to resecure but with persistance and tactics both can be done.

[Sledgecrushr]

I watch Sujieun and the outfit he is with on twitch tv every night. They usually run 2 squads and they are extremely effective. What they have working for them is great leadership, a willingness to do anything to help the fight, and a great relationship with other people in their empire. This tactical and social flexibility allows this Band of Bros to have a much larger footprint on the battlefield than what their numbers and "conventional wisdom" would seem to dictate.

[MrBloodworth]

Outposts should have been the game area for smaller outfits. But because they are near imposable to defend, due to design. Small outfits have little to do. This also includes lack of any real sort of support game play. Entire small outfits in PS1 could be dedicated support roles on a infantry and vehicle game play level, that's mostly non-existent in PS2.

The extremely fast pace of base captures ( And I mean this on a global, meta game flow, level ), and lack of an instant re-secure system, and the requirement of mass on point also removes small strike teams for having viable play avenues, you can no longer insert a small team to recap a base. Every re-secure attempt needs to hold a point as long as, or even longer than the attacking force, they will never have the numbers to do so.


The very best a small outfit and squad can hope to accomplish is dropping in and taking down a generator. Its about the only objective a small group can pull off that has any meaning. That is, if you can get there before XXX outfit/zerg steamrolls the thing. We can't back hack, or disrupt logistics any more.


Also, im just going to leave this here. This is what we all thought the next EVOLUTION of Planetside would be. Instead, we got Battlefield "Playing alone, together".
http://www.planetside-idealab.com/images/taskforces.jpg


http://www.planetside-idealab.com/idea_command_abilities.shtml



All of this was foretold many times over by vets.

[Hamma]

Your lack of tactical flexibility and unwillingness to work with others in a massive fps=fail

Please contribute to the thread in a constructive manner. Thanks!

[Mavvvy]

I think what he's saying is that the game relies to much on numbers, and not enough on squad skill and tactics.

Winning in this game is throwing more men at the objective than the other team.


I'm not saying 12 people should normally be able to beat a platoon, but with skill and organization, they should atleast pose a challenge to 1/2 a platoon.

Add in actually defensible bases, which should require at the minimum insanely good tactics, or a 2 to 1 advantage to capture.

Exactly, the respawn rate for both infantry and vehicles favours the zerg outfit. The problems we are talking about are outside of how to use a small squad in combat. Ie a large battle is a collection of small ones anyway.

The problem is when a small outfit does everything right, for example kills the enemy attacking their position at a 5:1 ratio but because of game mechanics still lose a skirmish on paper they should have won. Now I know this ain't gonna change much but its good to discuss.

[Sledgecrushr]

Should I double space my comments so they are easier to read? Did you even read my quote or do you not understand what I mean by tactical flexibility? Really Hamma...

[MrBloodworth]

Should I double space my comments so they are easier to read? Did you even read my quote or do you not understand what I mean by tactical flexibility? Really Hamma...

It was one dam sentence, and it said "Blame the players". Ignoring reality. I'm not entirely sure a member of the Devil dogs can understand the issues surrounding the small outfits. If you can, you sure are not even trying.

[Punker]

I seem to remember a rather large NC zergfit that started on Markov, spamming all day every day recruiting messages to sanc. And proudly boasting the largest number of members than any other outfit in PS.

This outfit was HUGE, but the big drawback for them was mass inviting a lot of players who were just plain bad. The main tactic employed was to pick a target and swarm it, throw numbers at it and hope for the best.

Because of this, the outfit, while large, was still only as effective as the zerg. Their one and only tactic of throwing numbers at a base just didn't work against more organised, proficient and effective outfits. Better players were just outsmarting and outgunning them at every turn. They just couldn't compete with the speed other outfits were moving.

Once the servers merged to become one, I witnessed less and less of these members on. It was a rare sight to see this tag during the final years of PS. I guess they all moved on? had enough of being farmed by better players (and fewer of them) and decided enough was enough.

Fast forward to now, PS2 released and the most effective tactic in the game right now? Numbers. Numbers = winning. This outfit emerges from the shadows, boasting huge numbers once more and basking in the glory of winning fights because focusing their zerg-like numbers to one target works.

Knowing this I can understand why members of this outfit will want the game to stay as it is currently. Their tactics are surprisingly working for them, and they are no longer the laughing stock of the empire.

It still makes the game stale and boring for anyone willing to employ clever tactics, but that's okay - as long as this outfit can have their fun in the sun throwing baddies into the meat grinder then everything is fine.

[Sledgecrushr]

Exactly, the respawn rate for both infantry and vehicles favours the zerg outfit.

if I recall correctly the respawn rate is exactly the same for everyone, barring certification of course.

[Whiteagle]

and every farm we find, SOE nerfs the ever loving shit out of, making the problem worse. its almost akin to saying they don't want us, sometimes. i kind of feel like its almost like they dont want competent, fast moving, and highly tactical outfits. they want zergfits.

i hate to make the analogy, but thanks to Thannis...

http://i.imgur.com/bVa4p.jpg

I'm not sorry, that is how it is.
Looks like the MI has some bugs to bust.

No, you've got the tactics of attacking a BIO Lab wrong. I've just come from a 40 minute fight for a Bio Lab and it wasn't a farm for the defenders (I think it was pretty even), we used tactics, we had our objectives and there was progression.

Bio Labs demonstrate the type of thing that every major base should. It's hard to take and once overrun hard to resecure but with persistance and tactics both can be done.
Indeed, the only problem I have with Bio Labs are that the satellite teleporters are the only alternate entry point besides the pads, and that's only because they need a shielded staging area inside the Dome as well as the difficulty in re-securing those satellite points.

What I would do is put a "basement" on the Dome accessible from the current Teleporter shacks (Possibly have this a purposefully dark area where flashlights and night-vision scopes would be useful?), then hollow out the legs so they can be used as covered staircases up to the basement.

Exactly, the respawn rate for both infantry and vehicles favours the zerg outfit. The problems we are talking about are outside of how to use a small squad in combat. Ie a large battle is a collection of small ones anyway.

The problem is when a small outfit does everything right, for example kills the enemy attacking their position at a 5:1 ratio but because of game mechanics still lose a skirmish on paper they should have won. Now I know this ain't gonna change much but its good to discuss.
I don't know if its the Respawn rate or just poor base defensibility...

A large number of Outposts on Indar allow attackers to drive right up to the point in a Lightning, while defenders spawn in a shack on the other side of the base...

I'd like to see base (More importantly, SPAWN POINT) defensibility improved before they start touching timers again.

[Hosp]

I seem to remember a rather large NC zergfit that started on Markov, spamming all day every day recruiting messages to sanc. And proudly boasting the largest number of members than any other outfit in PS.

This outfit was HUGE, but the big drawback for them was mass inviting a lot of players who were just plain bad. The main tactic employed was to pick a target and swarm it, throw numbers at it and hope for the best.

Because of this, the outfit, while large, was still only as effective as the zerg. Their one and only tactic of throwing numbers at a base just didn't work against more organised, proficient and effective outfits. Better players were just outsmarting and outgunning them at every turn. They just couldn't compete with the speed other outfits were moving.

Once the servers merged to become one, I witnessed less and less of these members on. It was a rare sight to see this tag during the final years of PS. I guess they all moved on? had enough of being farmed by better players (and fewer of them) and decided enough was enough.

Fast forward to now, PS2 released and the most effective tactic in the game right now? Numbers. Numbers = winning. This outfit emerges from the shadows, boasting huge numbers once more and basking in the glory of winning fights because focusing their zerg-like numbers to one target works.

Knowing this I can understand why members of this outfit will want the game to stay as it is currently. Their tactics are surprisingly working for them, and they are no longer the laughing stock of the empire.

It still makes the game stale and boring for anyone willing to employ clever tactics, but that's okay - as long as this outfit can have their fun in the sun throwing baddies into the meat grinder then everything is fine.

+1 Cus it shows.

[Captain1nsaneo]

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)

This is a sampling of the things I think about every day (all of which I'm leaning 'yes' towards - some feedback from you would be helpful). Feel free to add to the questions I posed above. I'm reading the responses here and paying attention. Love to know what you think.

Feedback! We love feedback! Thank you for posting!
The following were written out of order as fancy and stupor took over in turns.

#1: I've never been a fan of resources being the driving motive for a fight. They're a long acting metagame mechanic that, rather than changing the terrain of the fight, affects a side's morale as they can no longer defend against one type of attack. (Re: Higby's comments on Air being the game's AA, remove a side's aircraft resource and you can't be countered.) Give them a different role, time is enough of a resource cost for vehicles as is (respawn timers = time as a cost that's paid after pulling).
And now that I've remembered that this is supposed to be about outfit size, the question becomes is making resources a tighter control on player experience worth the possible enhancements that it would give to small outfits? Probably not.

#2: I'm a fan of a slower game but that's because it opens up space for socializing between squadmates but I know that speed has been a theme for PS2 so probably not. If your goal is to allow for response time then the best option is to reduce the paths that the attackers can take allowing defenders to wall themselves up at a choke point using the capture time of the territories between the two forces to buy them time to prepare.

#4: As Higby has said in the past that the problem with cost increase is that some people only want to do one thing and that thing requires a vehicle. If you're only interested in tanking then you're really being hurt by increased tank prices. I'd argue that the vehicle issue can't be solved through just "There are too many vehicles!" thinking. Making them more expensive won't reduce vehicles in a way that makes the game better. The two things in my mind that are up with vehicles are that 1: Vehicles are much more fun and 2: Vehicles are force multipliers with no effective downside.
Don't make vehicles less fun, just make them less utilitarian. (talking about base openness here) There is only one place where infantry are more important than vehicles and that's inside a biolab.
If you want some examples on this, check out how many people have bought the other AA arm vs an AI or AV arm for the MAX. Sounds weird I know but stick with my logic. If infantry fights were common and the opportunity for them was often then you'd see a large number of AI arm sales. The number of times AV MAX arms are useful I can count on one hand and that single finger stands for when there's a tank right outside the spawn. AA arms will probably be far outselling the other two because MAXs are responsible for keeping the rest of the infantry safe from the vehicle that can most easily spawn camp them. Though it might also tell you that there's not much quality AA in the game.

#5: The deployment options trimming was something that I was honestly expecting to happen every day I was playing in beta. Heck, if you really want to play around with it and add some possible meta-ES have the NC be able to spawn at the nearest Sundy, the TR the nearest 2, and the VS the nearest 3. Then of course you would have the NC be able to spawn at the nearest 3 bases, the TR the 2 nearest, and the VS just at the closest. Squad beacons and home bases/AMS would be exempt from these limits.

Not all territories need be equal. Nor do all hexs need to give the owning empire the ability to hack adjacent hexs. Try breaking up Indar to take advantage of the landscape and make solid lines of conflict rather than amorphous lines of scrimmage. This would make points that act as gateways so that some regions become high priority and thus tempting targets for lightning raids and harrowing defenses. Obviously these areas would be built up with an eye for defense.

Robo has some great stuff in his post, I disagree with #6 as such an event would cause players to constantly chase it rather than getting swept up in a large organic fight. Remember, not everyone liked Rabbit ball events (I met some who actively hated them). Rabbit ball did have its place but it would have been best if done on a once a week basis on the secondary. #7 should be done with tunnels, claustrophobia and confined firefights can bring back some of that old, pushing through a base from a backdoor feeling of having multiple paths to a goal where every bit of cover could hide an enemy. Totally agree with numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8. Though I'd add in that LLU doesn't have to be the only way to cap a base and there really should be a thread for ideas on how bases could be captured. I have some issues with #3 as while the benefit was the reason for going behind lines to cut supplies, gens were always a target during any fight and were protected as such. The open nature of PS2 architecture prevents this as anything not in the core of the base is indefensible. The devs have seen this and the way it's being dealt with is putting the gen either inside the core of the base or putting the shield generator that protects it in the core. But there's also another reason for gen demolition...

Also, story time.

Suspicious Activity, if anyone on this forum knows that name I'll be surprised. It was a small ephemeral outfit created way back in PS1's past. It was built with the idea of speed, skill, and resource denial. The members would work in groups of 2 piloting mossies between bases and hacking out fresh gear while running. The goal was to see how fast you could destroy the spawn room and gen in a base and then get back out. The results were impressive. The live fire exercise I saw ended a large fight by destroying half of Cyssor's bases in a short enough time that the NC couldn't respond. There's more to the story but any more risks being sentimental.

Spawn point denial is something that is currently ruled over by a single thing, the spawn generator. Having 2 points of weakness in the direct destruction of the tubes should be legitimate. After all, spawn camping doesn't happen if the tubes can't spawn anyone. Also, tower/territory spawnrooms shouldn't be involatile sanctuaries who's only remedy is conquest.

And I seem to have made a giant post again. I should stop doing that.

[Sledgecrushr]

It was one dam sentence, and it said "Blame the players". Ignoring reality. I'm not entirely sure a member of the Devil dogs can understand the issues surrounding the small outfits. If you can, you sure are not even trying.

I know what the ps1 vets are trying to do in this new game and I understand some of the tactics that they are trying to use in this new environment. Hack and hold is no longer a viable endeavor. Hack and run does work but you wont get into very many fights. Look the Devil Dogs have a division that works almost exclusively behind enemy lines without any support at all. Our shadow squads are very effective at small scale warfare.

As a group we have to look for new ways to do things. If something isnt working for you then try something different. Consider yourself and your outfit in an honest way. What I do is find someone who is doing really well and is in a similar situation and then I try to learn from them. I have given all of you small outfit guys a great lead with Sujieun and you should make something of it. Good luck on the field.

[Ralmevik]

I've rolled with little outfits, and big ones, and now play with one of the biggest ones I am aware of.

One and all, the the same failings exist, and the same successes. While size certainly matters, structure and community matter more.

One of the large outfits I played with in BETA and at launch was a mess, it was pure grabass because the leadership was more interested in being the "General" than actually leading.

The key for smaller outfits is building alliances with other small outfits and maintaining a common operational picture. Therein lies the problem, real communication and cooperation is rare in PS. Seems like a common issue when you have a system that allows anyone to lead, even the loudest kid on the bus who can muster enough social capital to lead people.. into failure.

The reason I have stuck with a big outfit up to now, is that the leadership is active, communicative, and there are standards of conduct. The fact that they offer to conduct basic training for new recruits (and bother recruiting via applications at all) makes them a cut above the rest.

I say your experience is what you make of it, and if you're not happy being in a small outfit, then be the leader you think you deserve and grow an outfit into something larger and well-run.

[p0intman]

I know what the ps1 vets are trying to do in this new game and I understand some of the tactics that they are trying to use in this new environment. Hack and hold is no longer a viable endeavor. Hack and run does work but you wont get into very many fights. Look the Devil Dogs have a division that works almost exclusively behind enemy lines without any support at all. Our shadow squads are very effective at small scale warfare.

As a group we have to look for new ways to do things. If something isnt working for you then try something different. Consider yourself and your outfit in an honest way. What I do is find someone who is doing really well and is in a similar situation and then I try to learn from them. I have given all of you small outfit guys a great lead with Sujieun and you should make something of it. Good luck on the field.
I want to smack you upside your head for your hubris. We tried being cooperative with your outfit, but we got shat on instead by your leaders. So you know what we did? We said fuck that.

[MrBloodworth]

I know what the ps1 vets are trying to do in this new game and I understand some of the tactics that they are trying to use in this new environment. Hack and hold is no longer a viable endeavor. Hack and run does work but you wont get into very many fights. Look the Devil Dogs have a division that works almost exclusively behind enemy lines without any support at all. Our shadow squads are very effective at small scale warfare.

As a group we have to look for new ways to do things. If something isnt working for you then try something different. Consider yourself and your outfit in an honest way. What I do is find someone who is doing really well and is in a similar situation and then I try to learn from them. I have given all of you small outfit guys a great lead with Sujieun and you should make something of it. Good luck on the field.

The Devil Dogs have a division that's the equivalent of a small outfit, and you do not see how that may possibly lead you to not understand the small outfit problems?

Small outfits do not have Divisions, nor "extra people" to fill holes in that "division", they have the members in the outfit. Those members also want viable game play that's meaningful. Like what was available in PS1.

Blame the player is not a solution. You have not added anything to this thread but Hubris in the form of concern for the little people, and telling people they are bad at the game. None of witch is in any way shape or form constructive.



Here, I shall offer a solution, at-least to one point. Allow Outfit alliances and a structure system ( tools ) for that alliance system to create a hierarchy and allow outfits to fill specialized rolls with in that hierarchy. This tool system needs to be IN GAME and not cryptic. As illustrated by Vets near 10 years ago, even if it was based on PS1's smaller scale.

This creates a situation where in small outfits can fit into a larger structure and by virtue of combined arms, create viable game play, and not loose the individual brand the outfit provides.

We did this in PS1, as part of the Ultra alliance, but having done that, I can tell you doing this out of game is frustrating, and time consuming.

[Hamma]

Back on topic folks.. ;)

[Sledgecrushr]

I want to smack you upside your head for your hubris. We tried being cooperative with your outfit, but we got shat on instead by your leaders. So you know what we did? We said fuck that.

Im sorry that happened Pointman 8 (. One of the things about the DD is that we have a lot of guys running operations so theres not a lot of consistency there. I invite you to bring this up with Evilpig and Im sure that it can be worked out. Personally I was always excited to fight side by side with your outfit the Praetorian Guard.

[jazzman]

The important thing to me is that not all players WANT to play in the same way.

Some people take pride in being an elite, small group of excellent skilled players and want to play the game that way. So be it.

Some want to play as a cog in a large, coordinated battle-group designed to bring multifaceted smaller units together to complete a common goal. That's fine too.

Personally I'd be bored in a tiny outfit, the numbers and the talent/skill required to help organize people is what drew me to planet-side, and the outfit I am in specifically.

While I realize it is not for me, I agree that the game is not very fun for public small groups and needs some work to make it better and more rewarding for these units.

Thanks Malorn for a great post that summarized much of what I have felt needs looked at in the game to make it more fun for EVERYONE.

I hope that it is not our outfit spam-inviting anyone. We have a very tight recruitment process that includes an instructional session in person on our own voice server for EVERY new recruit, and a myriad of training available for all members of our outfit. I do agree that a spam-invite, zerg-outfit of nothing but a massive smash of randoms in one direction, could possibly be hurting the game. But unfortunately there is not much way to separate large UNorganized groups from large well-organized groups, logistically from planetside2 developers perspective. The best we can do is give the player that would join the zergfit better, more appealing options to join instead. Whether that's a big coordinated outfit or a smaller, more specialized/skilled outfit. And then hope players choose to join a better outfit instead. The unfortunate truth is, as big as this game's audience is supposed to be, we will never be rid of those lone-wolf KDR-centric players who just want the most kills in the least time. And if you ask me those are the players following (and charging headfirst) with the zerg.

TL;DR: Don't hate on big outfits or small outfits or no outfits. The game is for everyone, find your niche and rock it.

[p0intman]

Im sorry that happened Pointman 8 (. One of the things about the DD is that we have a lot of guys running operations so theres not a lot of consistency there. I invite you to bring this up with Evilpig and Im sure that it can be worked out. Personally I was always excited to fight side by side with your outfit the Praetorian Guard.

The problem, you might guess (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=869557&postcount=182), is probably past resolution.

[Stanis]

One aspect of smaller teamwork objectives is defensibility.
We don't need than another thread on base design, HE spam which are factors in that.

I would like to submit we have a "no grenade" weekend.
In turn the lower TTK makes defence harder without defense friendly design present.

But, when attempting to hold as infantry v. infantry one aspect that makes that almost impossible regardless is grenades.
I don't fear an entrenched enemy position. A grenade usually kills them or forces them to abandon. It is the infantry HE.

I would like to see CE - mines and grenades be reduced in damage but increased in numbers.

[Figment]

We're trying to revive the New Conglomerate Werner Alliance. Such alliances are a pain to get started though, since you need plentiful contacts and it's a two way street in contacting everyone and creating the network required.

We're hoping for an /a alliance chat. Currently Brutal-Deluxe (my outfit) and Armored Fist (and often Formido) join single platoons, but even then we don't field more than two squads really.

Defense favours the attackers and since more numbers means you're on the attack and initiative and since defense doesn't work with the current layouts, we said from the start (hell, I told Higby at Gamescom) that this game is more designed for zerg than for smallish outfits. I was concerned then and I still am now.


You'll also notice that it's always the zergfit types that think there's no need for defense because their numbers SHOULD win.



But you know what happens when you limit outfit numbers? World of Tanks did that with clans. What happened is you had CSA, then CSA2. Then CSA3, 4 and 5.

It doesn't stop them.

[MrBloodworth]

TL;DR: Don't hate on big outfits or small outfits or no outfits. The game is for everyone, find your niche and rock it.

Jesus F Christ. The thread is not about Devil dogs. Nor is it about "Hating large outfits". It is 100% about the disparity in game play offers large outfits VS small outfits and the viability for small outfits to have meaningful game play.

It is not about playing the game wrong. It about the design of the game.

Before you even say it Hamma, I know, and that's the last thing ill say. Back on topic.

[jazzman]

Jesus F Christ. The thread is not about Devil dogs. Nor is it about "Hating large outfits". It is 100% about the disparity in game play offers large outfits VS small outfits and the viability for small outfits to have meaningful game play.

It is not about playing the game wrong. It about the design of the game.

I agree with you!!!!! Sorry if my post came off wrong. I wasn't trying to say that we feel hated but when the OP is basically asking the question "Are big outfits hurting the game", I believe as a member of a big outfit I have at least some voice in the matter.

On the topic of Small groups, I AGREE WITH YOU!!!! :lol:

I agree that the game is not very fun for public small groups and needs some work to make it better and more rewarding for these units.

[SGTHACK]

We just need more points or some kind of incentive for the defending troops.

[MrBloodworth]

I have no issues with large outfits. But it seems the idea of all player types being viable, non FPS players, small groups of friends, medium sized military outfits, ETC.. were lost in translation. Not that it was really ever the best of times for those groups in 1.

Large groups are covered.

[Sledgecrushr]

I agree that small outposts should be more defensible. Air and vehicle spam in these outposts really favor the fresh incoming attackers with vehicles.

[Stanis]

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)


Resources need a logistical role that the enemy can exploit.
Currently its dominant empire gets more resources, dominates more.
To answer a later point - I don't think vehicles should cost more. Just flat out making something more expensive would be artificial introduced because of a perceived problem - not a solution to the problem.
By this I mean that a play also has the cert investment in vehicles. They have a limiting timer, also the terrain and layout of bases in how they are used. These are tactical limits.

In a later post you mention the presence of enemy vehicles in PS1 courtyards. True, the were camped. However this had far less influence on the subsequent infantry combat. With the exception of the Bio Lab gen on the roof - which was a key small outfit target for attack or defence - key infantry actions inside remained mostly unaffected by vehicles.
Defence multiplers or defender advantage aside - PS2 should never have allowed vehicle/combined arms into virtually all areas of every major base.


Give the timers and terrain as tactical limits on vehicles and resource expenditure what we are missing is strategic limits.
Resources should effect vehicle costs in the same way NTU drain did in PS1. We must be able to cut off the accumulation of resources - irrespective of the fact that 80% of the map is <color>.
Most hexes have little actual purpose if they don't contain a base. Those outposts and towers provide fairly generic facilities.
They should have comms towers, shield arrays, listening posts, observation points.
Every facility should have a benefit or pass-it-on.

If we knock out the comms array two hexes away from the warpgate - resources arent getting handed out. no intel is provided on the map.
The shield generator array next to the amp station should be a "capital" style shield around a base or one that is only passable in a few locations.

These are strategic targets that allow for logistics based warfare rather than "kill zerg". A 30 man outfit defending or attacking a comms arrray can swing a fight - and a 30 man outfit can fast respond or ignore it at their peril.

The hex system is here a nightmare. There are few 'bottlenecks' that the lattice created. It is almost impossible to cut off or isolate without already dominating.


Territory capture needs to be exploited.
In the sense that right now every territory is captured the same way.
Strategies will only evolve when mutliple options exist, and bases are different.
We need both the return of different capture types, but the introduction of options.
There is no "hold" possible. To introduce "hack and hold" is what many of us want. When that is viable and a last minute resecure achievable - many of us will be happy.
Hack and hold. LLU/CTF. Ticket Race (what we had most of Beta). Ticket Contest (what we have now).
Then we need ways to adjust or change this.
When hack starts - one of the nearest enemy comms array starts. By taking and holding that they convert Ticket Contest to "ticket race" for their empire.
You can now either: resecure the base itself. stop enemy tacking your comm array. go for the enemy comm array.
Or the enemy took out your associated shield hexs. By recapturing that hex you exclude enemy air from the base, restore internal 'blast shields' and make it possible to clear room-to-room.

Instead of LLU runs. Flip it around. How about the simply ability to bring a "control virus" from warpgate to a base. Replaces the AMS on a Sunderer. Only spawns at warpgate. Puts drive speed at 70%. When it enters a base SOI it gives you a +20% cap rate.
Oh yes - and every intel grid on the continent detects it and makes you a bright big shiny target on the map.

Interlink farms Were such farm. Put some stealth units in to counter the radar and intel. Then put interlink hexes that provide enhanced radar coverage/intel. You might want to neutralise those before taking a base within it's sphere of influence.

Defence does not need to reward more XP.
Defence needs to be possible. Right now it's more a case of counter-offensive or counter-attack.
I've yet to find a real bottleneck in terrain that can be held.
Virtually every bridge you can just go around, over, under or ignore.

We need both impassable terrain and ways to make an area no mans land.
Please bring back the PS1 CE model of many individual items, doing significantly less damage each. There is still boomers/c4 for the instakill wetwork - I want to deny a mountain pass not just 8m x 1m this side of the shield.


Deployment reductions? Hardly. I'd rather we could spawn everywhere - but the further away it was the longer 'respawn' time incurred.
Which suggests another hex benefit for spec ops : something that massively increases the spawn timers if not defended.
I can redeploy in 25 seconds across about 5 hexes .. so I can cross the map
in about 1min 30. Or I can /suicide and hop in 15 sec blocks.

I'd like to be able to bind at a base.
We can always spawn at a Platoon AMS.
Spawn on squad leader and the spawn beacon are enough.

I do think that for the first 12hrs of actual in-game time new players should be able to spawn wherever they want in friendly territory without timer penalty. Part of the training/familiarisation process.
(Thats per account, not for new characters!!)


Mostly I'd like to shoot whoever designed the bases.
Walls. Have merlons on the outer-edge only. This providers cover to the defenders. It means the attackers that reach the walls are in line of sight to the defenders.
Walls. For a benefit merlon gaps should have shields infantry can fire through. You have to take the walls the hard way - or the shield gen in the linked hex.

Courtyard. More of a barbican. Should be open. With foxholes. Emplacements. For the defenders to shoot and scoot.

Base. Infantry only. Spawns. Generators. They go in here. Line of Sight, Angle of Elevation. Shields. Walls. ROOF! They prevent HE rounds and carpet bombs. Part of most bases should resemble a biolab.


Malorn - hope you make use of the excellent ideas in the other posts here.

[tkoreaper]

I honestly don't see a problem. If you're going to be a solo squad-sized outfit then you're gonna have to play like one and do what you're capable of. You simply cannot go from territory to territory with hopes of single-handedly taking it with a small amount of people every time... It just won't happen. If you're wanting to do that then PS just isn't for you because of how large the scale is.

At the end of the day we accomplish things as an empire, not an outfit... the outfits are there to help keep some organization. This isn't like other games where it's the guilds/clans that get all the glory for their accomplishments. Learn to have fun with what you have! If you want to stay small then stay close to the zerg and/or organized outfits and support them.

[maradine]

I honestly don't see a problem. If you're going to be a solo squad-sized outfit then you're gonna have to play like one and do what you're capable of. You simply cannot go from territory to territory with hopes of single-handedly taking it with a small amount of people every time... It just won't happen. If you're wanting to do that then PS just isn't for you because of how large the scale is.

I don't think that's what people are asking for. I think people are asking for tasks that are more granular than a "base fight" - something that would be an optimal use of a dozen people or so, and contributes directly or indirectly to the larger war happening around it.

For instance, making certain small facilities into "resource dumps", that when destroyed, subtract 200 from the holding empire's individual pools. This is important enough to send a squad after, and important enough to send a squad to continuously defend, but not a good use of an entire outfit's energy (though they could of course subtask this easily). Only an example, but illustrative of the kinds of things I'm seeing desired here. I don't think anyone wants to be able to take a sqaud and go toe-to-toe with Enclave, or do the sorts of things that only a force of that size can do.

[MrBloodworth]

I honestly don't see a problem. If you're going to be a solo squad-sized outfit then you're gonna have to play like one and do what you're capable of. You simply cannot go from territory to territory with hopes of single-handedly taking it with a small amount of people every time... It just won't happen. If you're wanting to do that then PS just isn't for you because of how large the scale is.

At the end of the day we accomplish things as an empire, not an outfit... the outfits are there to help keep some organization. This isn't like other games where it's the guilds/clans that get all the glory for their accomplishments. Learn to have fun with what you have! If you want to stay small then stay close to the zerg and/or organized outfits and support them.

Stop posting.

[Tatwi]

100% endorse robo's post. Hit the nail on the head.

I agree, that covered everything i had to say.

Since beta I wondered why SOE never made use of the underground doorway art assets to lead into actaul underground facilities. Ti Alloys could connect to The Crown, Crossroads, and Zurvan, with some interesting facilities and capture points underground as well as paths to move troops on foot to different locations. I posted this months ago -they could even have environmental barrier, like gas leaks, that can be caused and repaired by any side, as ways to effect traffic though the tunnels (and that sort of thing).

Side note, I was sad to see KrakenOne, a fellow SWG vet, being such a douche. "go play something else", is not a valid statement to make towards Hamma or the good majority of people who post here. PSU is where those who have been invested in the franchise for years go to talk. If they don't like something, that something is wrong. Many others will come and go, but the PSU community will remain the integral core of PS2, so given their experience in PS1, their staying power, qne their open pocket books, it would be wise to take their feedback to heart, even if it does not make sense to you. Simply put, PSU knows better. :groovy:

[tkoreaper]

I don't think that's what people are asking for. I think people are asking for tasks that are more granular than a "base fight" - something that would be an optimal use of a dozen people or so, and contributes directly or indirectly to the larger war happening around it.

For instance, making certain small facilities into "resource dumps", that when destroyed, subtract 200 from the holding empire's individual pools. This is important enough to send a squad after, and important enough to send a squad to defend, but not a good use of an entire outfit's energy (though they could of course subtask this easily). Only an example, but illustrative of the kinds of things I'm seeing desired here. I don't think anyone wants to be able to take a sqaud and go toe-to-toe with Enclave, or do the sorts of things that only a force of that size can do.

We can all sit here and talk about adding in features/gameplay that only need the use of a small amount of people, but the reality is that at the end of the day the more people there are the more efficient that objective is completed... There's nothing to say it will be easier or quicker because that is subjective to the amount of resistance.

If you implement an objective that requires 12 people to take out a target or stand at a point then that's cool, but the second you add ANY form of resistance it will become more beneficial to have more numbers... plain and simple.

I cannot fathom an idea where an objective could be created in which the resistance isn't an issue simply because 1. The objective need some beneficial purpose to even make it worth doing and 2. The enemy will always want to prevent you from accomplishing anything that is beneficial to you. The developers would have to create instances where the amount of people is highly restrictive to cater to this kind of small scale gameplay and I just don't see that happening.

[Kail]

I know many people before have posted about outposts having benefits, but I wonder how merging that concept with something like LLU's (if that's the PS1 thing you could move between bases, its been awhile) would work out. For example, consider three boosts:

Shielding, Cooling, and Heating.

Each one can be applied to an interactable object (generator, turret, SCU) and control points. On interactable objects they last until replaced or the object is destroyed, and on points until the base flips / replaced.

Shielding provides engineer-turret like shields on turrets, on generators more or less doubles the time defenders have to resecure (as the overload must break the shield first), and on control points provides artillery shielding in a tastefully sized globe around it.
Cooling reduces the buildup of heat on turrets, makes generators require at least one attacker to stay nearby or it self-stabalizes, and passive health regen near control points.
Heating increases fire rate for turrets, allows defenders to near-instantly stabilize generators, and increases the flip rate of control points for defenders.


Only three, so its easy for a player to quickly get a handle on the options. Now the devious part: They can only be picked up at outposts, and doing so replaces your weapons.

Controlling adjacent territories isn't required, but helps because you can supply boosts quicker and safer. What boosts to apply where could add interesting strategy, and since boost are tied to points / turrets / generators, having a large squad doesn't help (except for having a bunch of people standing around worthlessly for when things get destroyed.

Anyway, just a random musing I had today while hopped up on cold medicine.

[Figment]

if I recall correctly the respawn rate is exactly the same for everyone, barring certification of course.

Sledge, when you make comments like this on a very regular basis, it's clear you don't understand what numbers do.

That's because you're in a zergfit. You have so many numbers that attrition doesn't matter anymore to you. Small outfits see this, because even if ONE of your people is put on a timer, 20 others just got off their timer.

The small outfit ONLY sees that you keep bringing new vehicles on top of the pile of vehicles already there.






I saw someone comment to use smaller transport units etc. That does nothing for small groups. What helps is bring down the sheer numerical spam of things. FORCIBLY CREWED VEHICLES (no seat switching either!) would help small units MUCH MORE.

Why? Because one crew tank is much easier to deal with than three solo tanks, simply because you need say 6-9 rockets to kill the one, not 15-27, the rate of fire towards the small units would be smaller as well.


But zergfit crews don't see that. This is one of the main reasons we've always said crewed vehicles are a must. It's not "more fun", because you're ruining the fun of others by bringing way too many solo units.

[p0intman]

We can all sit here and talk about adding in features/gameplay that only need the use of a small amount of people, but the reality is that at the end of the day the more people there are the more efficient that objective is completed... There's nothing to say it will be easier or quicker because that is subjective to the amount of resistance.

If you implement an objective that requires 12 people to take out a target or stand at a point then that's cool, but the second you add ANY form of resistance it will become more beneficial to have more numbers... plain and simple.

I cannot fathom an idea where an objective could be created in which the resistance isn't an issue simply because 1. The objective need some beneficial purpose to even make it worth doing and 2. The enemy will always want to prevent you from accomplishing anything that is beneficial to you. The developers would have to create instances where the amount of people is highly restrictive to cater to this kind of small scale gameplay and I just don't see that happening.
unless it was a new cont, like caverns in which armor and liberators couldn't go.

[Figment]

If you want to somehow restrict large outfits more than smaller outfits in terms of resources, you could go do that in an extremely drastic manner and have outfit resource rates, rather than personal rates.

Of course, most big outfits would just split up into smaller sister outfits to reap the benefits anyway.

[p0intman]

If you want to somehow restrict large outfits more than smaller outfits in terms of resources, you could go do that in an extremely drastic manner and have outfit resource rates, rather than personal rates.

Of course, most big outfits would just split up into smaller sister outfits to reap the benefits anyway.

Can't be a mechanic like that. Its just easy to be gamed to have an artificial ceiling where effectiveness mechanically drops off the face of a cliff. Instead, objectives where it isn't cost/time effective to devote large numbers to unless the enemy is dead set on taking it back and must drop the hammer on it. Its more about discouraging through subtlety the large zergs rather than outright saying FUCK YOU. Leave them to their own part of the game, and maybe center searhus, oshur and hossin on smaller scale warfare type stuff where armor and aircraft aren't as effective.

any mechanic needs to be developed with the fact that players are infinitely more clever than a set of developers ever can be, and if it can be gamed, it will be, in ways the developers don't intend or simply never thought of. So instead of creating mechanics, create a set of tools for players, and let us figure it out.

Remember how I was howling pre-beta about it being zerg side all day every day and that it was a large scale bf2/3 game? Look at where we are now. Team deathmatch-side.

[MrBloodworth]

If you want to somehow restrict large outfits more than smaller outfits in terms of resources, you could go do that in an extremely drastic manner and have outfit resource rates, rather than personal rates.

Of course, most big outfits would just split up into smaller sister outfits to reap the benefits anyway.

I don't think anyone wants to restrict large outfits, only gain more opportunity for small outfits to participate.

[Hamma]

Yea, what MrBloodworth said.

[Hosp]

Except we wouldn't be gaining it...We'd be regaining it. Remember, PS1 had it and it has yet to be implemented in PS2.

[Tatwi]

I don't think anyone wants to restrict large outfits, only gain more opportunity for small outfits to participate.

I would like to limit large outfits from using the "everyone suicide and..." device. Malorn really sung up the praises of The Enclave, but this is their primary tactic, which is both lame in general (death traveling) and far too effective of a power multiplier. I loathed taking part in it, because it felt spastic, abusive, and flat out boring (win win win and maybe have someone to shoot at with 50 other people shooting at them too...), but the tactic worked so who was I to say anything. The trouble is, it works for all large groups at the expense of the game.

The trouble isn't the large groups, but how they use the game to achieve the easiest route to "victory", ie. Death travel, vehicle spam, and superior numbers rather than superior skill.

The stuff in this thread is why I don't play - the game is boring in a zergfit and boring not in one, so why bother doing more than logging in to shoot stuff and blow stuff when the mood strikes? Fix these issues (and the performance issues, as beta played smoother...) and PS2 will be worth playing. Right now there's just no point nor any variety to the game.

[DirkSmacker]

Large outfits will have issues if/when they start having outfit leaderboards.

When it happens, the game needs alliance level organizations to allow for outfits with different play styles to easily form up when they have to.

[TheFirstOmen]

To answer the original question of the thread: No. Larger outfits do not hurt the game.

If a large outfit exists, it is because players enjoy being a part of something greater than themselves and that outfit is clearly doing something right to be recruiting so many people.

That being said, I'd like to address something that has been mentioned before but I would like to reiterate again on this thread:

Planetside 2 tactics are a joke. There I said it. Planetside 2 tactics are 110% a complete and utter piece of crap. In a larger outfit, I can tell you those leaders always send air, armor and infantry together or rolling close together.

Does this make them a zerg rush? It's debatable. I've heard both sides of the argument so many times I can tell you it largely depends on the situation. When you've got 1 infantry platoon with an armor platoon and air squads all on small outpost, I'd call that a zerg rush. However, because some of the outfits are more organized, they can redeploy in a pinch to attack an enemy force of equal-greater numbers.

However, the point still remains that the sure, guaranteed 100% fool proof way to win is overwhelming numbers. There's simply no counter to numbers and I do not believe that should EVER be any counter to being over-run with enemies. What there needs to be is more secondary objectives, as mentioned before, for smaller outfits or squads. I'm not exactly sure how these secondary objectives play into the overall meta-game, but it's something that is desperately needed in the game right now.

[Whiteagle]

Feedback! We love feedback! Thank you for posting!
Indeed, give us more, I HAVE COOKIES!!!

#1: I've never been a fan of resources being the driving motive for a fight. They're a long acting metagame mechanic that, rather than changing the terrain of the fight, affects a side's morale as they can no longer defend against one type of attack. (Re: Higby's comments on Air being the game's AA, remove a side's aircraft resource and you can't be countered.) Give them a different role, time is enough of a resource cost for vehicles as is (respawn timers = time as a cost that's paid after pulling).
Yeah, it is one of the reasons why I was rather uncertain about removing Auraxium as an in-game currency to be honest...

The taking and denial of Resources should have been a major component of Continental Strategic planning, but right now Resource Income is just another measuring stick for how well your Faction is doing on a particular Continent.

Your average player doesn't care about them outside of how much of a particular Resource they need, just their characters personal advancement...

Since the fastest way to advance characters is through Certification Points earned through Experience and the fastest way to gain Experience Points is with Base Captures, it's no wonder people rush to capture a Continent only to immediately abandon it.

...Perhaps Auraxium should make a comeback, not as a set Resource but as as an In-game Currency rewarded overall for how well your faction is doing? (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=842843#post842843)

#2: I'm a fan of a slower game but that's because it opens up space for socializing between squadmates but I know that speed has been a theme for PS2 so probably not. If your goal is to allow for response time then the best option is to reduce the paths that the attackers can take allowing defenders to wall themselves up at a choke point using the capture time of the territories between the two forces to buy them time to prepare.

#4: As Higby has said in the past that the problem with cost increase is that some people only want to do one thing and that thing requires a vehicle. If you're only interested in tanking then you're really being hurt by increased tank prices. I'd argue that the vehicle issue can't be solved through just "There are too many vehicles!" thinking. Making them more expensive won't reduce vehicles in a way that makes the game better. The two things in my mind that are up with vehicles are that 1: Vehicles are much more fun and 2: Vehicles are force multipliers with no effective downside.
Don't make vehicles less fun, just make them less utilitarian. (talking about base openness here) There is only one place where infantry are more important than vehicles and that's inside a biolab.
If you want some examples on this, check out how many people have bought the other AA arm vs an AI or AV arm for the MAX. Sounds weird I know but stick with my logic. If infantry fights were common and the opportunity for them was often then you'd see a large number of AI arm sales. The number of times AV MAX arms are useful I can count on one hand and that single finger stands for when there's a tank right outside the spawn. AA arms will probably be far outselling the other two because MAXs are responsible for keeping the rest of the infantry safe from the vehicle that can most easily spawn camp them. Though it might also tell you that there's not much quality AA in the game.
Again, I think both of these are an issue of defensibility...

You can't slow down because there are few places you can actually entrench without getting steamrolled by a Vehicle rush.

Those few places you CAN dig in (Jaeger's Crossing, Scarred Mesa Skydock, The... Crown, Raven's Landing) provide EPIC fights, probably specifically because the long fights force groups of strangers to form a Brotherhood in Arms!

The rest suffer from poor spawn design and base layout.

Take what should be an Epic base to fight at, Auraxis Firearm's Corp on Amerish.
It's very clear that the majority of an attacking force is suppose to be funnelled into the bottleneck that is the bridge, ground vehicles duking it out while Infantry try to creep their way up, until finally they've made their way to the Courtyard of the Base to cut off the Spawn off from the Control Point.
Aerial control, mostly provided by Raven's Landing, would help by allowing one side to suppress the Vehicle flow of the other...

...The problem is, the cookie-cutter spawn building is SO exposed that Air-to-Ground can easily keep it suppress on its own and Raven's Landing just doesn't have enough Anti-Air turrets to deter an Air-Rush!

You end up not even needing a Ground fight, just one guy to land and cap the point.

To fix this, Raven's Landing should get more AA Phalanxes (to greater its importance in Capturing Auraxis Firearm's Corp), Auraxis Firearm's Corp should probably get one or two itself (just to provide some innate means of air denial), and there needs to be MORE OVER HEAD COVER, particularly leading out of the Spawn to the Vehicle Terminal and subsequently the Control Point (It also needs a large number of Spear Phalanxes, particularly at each end of the bridge, but at least one on each corner of the plateau to deter Light Assault AMS Sunderer Rushes).

#5: The deployment options trimming was something that I was honestly expecting to happen every day I was playing in beta. Heck, if you really want to play around with it and add some possible meta-ES have the NC be able to spawn at the nearest Sundy, the TR the nearest 2, and the VS the nearest 3. Then of course you would have the NC be able to spawn at the nearest 3 bases, the TR the 2 nearest, and the VS just at the closest. Squad beacons and home bases/AMS would be exempt from these limits.
Personally I've never been a fan of limiting spawn availability, but that's because it's a pain in the ass to need to mount up every time you go to re-enforce a defense on the other side of the Continent...

...Still, that is a rather interesting idea for asymmetrical balance.

Not all territories need be equal. Nor do all hexs need to give the owning empire the ability to hack adjacent hexs. Try breaking up Indar to take advantage of the landscape and make solid lines of conflict rather than amorphous lines of scrimmage. This would make points that act as gateways so that some regions become high priority and thus tempting targets for lightning raids and harrowing defenses. Obviously these areas would be built up with an eye for defense.
Well I do know that Adjacency is some times a huge pain in the ass, especially in Northern Indar where tiny Outpost control HUGE Territories and where all you need to make a move on Dahaka Amp Station is take Indar Comm Array or Seabed Listening Post...

...You don't know how happy I was to see Howling Pass Checkpoint be put in or Quartz Ridge be made into a serviceable base.

Robo has some great stuff in his post, I disagree with #6 as such an event would cause players to constantly chase it rather than getting swept up in a large organic fight. Remember, not everyone liked Rabbit ball events (I met some who actively hated them). Rabbit ball did have its place but it would have been best if done on a once a week basis on the secondary. #7 should be done with tunnels, claustrophobia and confined firefights can bring back some of that old, pushing through a base from a backdoor feeling of having multiple paths to a goal where every bit of cover could hide an enemy. Totally agree with numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8. Though I'd add in that LLU doesn't have to be the only way to cap a base and there really should be a thread for ideas on how bases could be captured. I have some issues with #3 as while the benefit was the reason for going behind lines to cut supplies, gens were always a target during any fight and were protected as such. The open nature of PS2 architecture prevents this as anything not in the core of the base is indefensible. The devs have seen this and the way it's being dealt with is putting the gen either inside the core of the base or putting the shield generator that protects it in the core. But there's also another reason for gen demolition...
Well I unfortunately never experienced the Original Planetside, so I can't honestly use it as a reference point...

Most of my insight comes from the Second Life Military Community... so I have WAY more patience when it comes to fixing things like bad spawns, since its still miles above "Black-screening."

Suspicious Activity, if anyone on this forum knows that name I'll be surprised. It was a small ephemeral outfit created way back in PS1's past. It was built with the idea of speed, skill, and resource denial. The members would work in groups of 2 piloting mossies between bases and hacking out fresh gear while running. The goal was to see how fast you could destroy the spawn room and gen in a base and then get back out. The results were impressive. The live fire exercise I saw ended a large fight by destroying half of Cyssor's bases in a short enough time that the NC couldn't respond. There's more to the story but any more risks being sentimental.
Ok, that's just sounds awesome!
This is exactly the time of thing I'd want Mobile Infantry Raven Squads to be able to do.

Spawn point denial is something that is currently ruled over by a single thing, the spawn generator. Having 2 points of weakness in the direct destruction of the tubes should be legitimate. After all, spawn camping doesn't happen if the tubes can't spawn anyone. Also, tower/territory spawnrooms shouldn't be involatile sanctuaries who's only remedy is conquest.
Well remember I'm from Second Life Combat scene, where spawn camping wasn't just a Tactic but the ENDGOLD of a base assault (Hence "Black-Screening," killing an enemy as they spawn so often that they can't leave the loading screen and eventually just quit the game)!

Perhaps instead of a Spawn Control Unit at major Facilities, there should be a Spawn Room Shield Generator that protects PS1 style Hackable/Destroyable Spawn Tubes...

...The current Satellite Points could then have self-contained Units base on the current one room Spawn Shacks, that could be hacked/disabled from a point on the side.

Of course, I think Outpost should keep the current system of only flipping with control of the base, as I have an interim solution to help base defensibility:
As such, I feel we should probably focus on more immediate means of strengthening bases...

...Namely, replacing those deathtrap sardine cans that are small spawn buildings!

Let's face it, they are probably the worst offenders when it comes to camping, offering no real protection against enemy forces while simultaneously being more of a hindrance to defense then an asset.

A couple of days ago, an idea thread on "fortifications" got me thinking about Platoon Leaders having access to deployable Spawn Buildings...

Now the viability of such a concept is debatable, but it did lead me to a small spawn building design that would be a VAST improvement over the current boxes.

It would be a mushroom-shaped structure, a squat tower from which the base can be defended from.

The trunk of the building itself has no entrances, just a set of two spawn tubes, equipment terminals, and a shielded elevator for going to and from the second floor.
The second floor itself would be an octangular arrangement of bastions and machicolations, roofed in such a way that only the outermost lips of the bastions would be open to overhead bombardment.
This would allow the spawn building itself to be used as a defensive hard-point as well as providing defenders four potential sheltered exits down through the machicolations...

...The only downside is that Light Assaults will be the only ones able to get back INTO the spawn after dropping, but this could be partially alleviated by external equipment terminals...

Thoughts?

...I call it the Alamo Mushroom.

And I seem to have made a giant post again. I should stop doing that.
You and me both brother...

...I now have to compile three different responses like this in the time its taken me to write ONE!

...AND the first two are too big to put in one post!

*Continue.*

[Whiteagle]

*Continued and individually posted for the sake of space.*

Sorry if I hacked up your post for concisely Stanis...

In a later post you mention the presence of enemy vehicles in PS1 courtyards. True, the were camped. However this had far less influence on the subsequent infantry combat. With the exception of the Bio Lab gen on the roof - which was a key small outfit target for attack or defence - key infantry actions inside remained mostly unaffected by vehicles.
Defence multiplers or defender advantage aside - PS2 should never have allowed vehicle/combined arms into virtually all areas of every major base.
Hell, the Major Facilities are probably the BEST when it comes to segregating Infantry and Vehicles!

Most Outpost, particularly on Indar and Esamir, seem to be designed with the idea that the most they'd ever see is a Tank or two and maybe a passing Aircraft...
...Not an entire fucking army rolling up for free XP!

Mostly I'd like to shoot whoever designed the bases.
Walls. Have merlons on the outer-edge only. This providers cover to the defenders. It means the attackers that reach the walls are in line of sight to the defenders.
Walls. For a benefit merlon gaps should have shields infantry can fire through. You have to take the walls the hard way - or the shield gen in the linked hex.

Courtyard. More of a barbican. Should be open. With foxholes. Emplacements. For the defenders to shoot and scoot.

Base. Infantry only. Spawns. Generators. They go in here. Line of Sight, Angle of Elevation. Shields. Walls. ROOF! They prevent HE rounds and carpet bombs. Part of most bases should resemble a biolab.
Yeah, who was the genius who thought a bunch of randomly strung about aluminium shacks that don't even give off the impression of a shanty town would make GREAT Strategic First-person Shooter maps?

I think they should go and try to start their own army in Second Life, then when they inevitably fail go and join the Merczateers (http://merczateers.net/) to see how a base SHOULD be build...

...Believe me, Anthony be itching to rebuild the damn thing sooner or later.:p

Give the timers and terrain as tactical limits on vehicles and resource expenditure what we are missing is strategic limits.
Resources should effect vehicle costs in the same way NTU drain did in PS1. We must be able to cut off the accumulation of resources - irrespective of the fact that 80% of the map is <color>.
Most hexes have little actual purpose if they don't contain a base. Those outposts and towers provide fairly generic facilities.
They should have comms towers, shield arrays, listening posts, observation points.
Every facility should have a benefit or pass-it-on.

If we knock out the comms array two hexes away from the warpgate - resources arent getting handed out. no intel is provided on the map.
The shield generator array next to the amp station should be a "capital" style shield around a base or one that is only passable in a few locations.

These are strategic targets that allow for logistics based warfare rather than "kill zerg". A 30 man outfit defending or attacking a comms arrray can swing a fight - and a 30 man outfit can fast respond or ignore it at their peril.

The hex system is here a nightmare. There are few 'bottlenecks' that the lattice created. It is almost impossible to cut off or isolate without already dominating.

Hack and hold. LLU/CTF. Ticket Race (what we had most of Beta). Ticket Contest (what we have now).
Then we need ways to adjust or change this.
When hack starts - one of the nearest enemy comms array starts. By taking and holding that they convert Ticket Contest to "ticket race" for their empire.
You can now either: resecure the base itself. stop enemy tacking your comm array. go for the enemy comm array.
Or the enemy took out your associated shield hexs. By recapturing that hex you exclude enemy air from the base, restore internal 'blast shields' and make it possible to clear room-to-room.

Interlink farms Were such farm. Put some stealth units in to counter the radar and intel. Then put interlink hexes that provide enhanced radar coverage/intel. You might want to neutralise those before taking a base within it's sphere of influence.
Well one of the first concepts I developed when I came to this form was an idea for an Orbital Inter-Continental Structure that would connect all the landmasses with Orbital Elevators, which could then be used as beachheads to assault Continents from. (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=837932#post837932)

This eventually evolved to include a Pipeline Lattice (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=842398#post842398), which would be the means Resources were transported around the globe and could be sabotaged to hamper enemy factions. (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=842452#post842452)

Such a fixed infrastructure system would work GREAT with ideas like these, each Outpost could provide some kind of benefit in addition to control of the Hex, while various pipeline nodes would provide secondary objectives with which Special Ops could deny the Resources and benefits granted by those Outpost.

Territory capture needs to be exploited.
In the sense that right now every territory is captured the same way.
Strategies will only evolve when mutliple options exist, and bases are different.
We need both the return of different capture types, but the introduction of options.
There is no "hold" possible. To introduce "hack and hold" is what many of us want. When that is viable and a last minute resecure achievable - many of us will be happy.
Yeah, this is where my lack of Experience with the Original Planetside hurts me, because I came from an environment where the development of actual capturable objectives was relatively recent thing despite how much it improved the experience for attackers...

Instead of LLU runs. Flip it around. How about the simply ability to bring a "control virus" from warpgate to a base. Replaces the AMS on a Sunderer. Only spawns at warpgate. Puts drive speed at 70%. When it enters a base SOI it gives you a +20% cap rate.
Oh yes - and every intel grid on the continent detects it and makes you a bright big shiny target on the map.
That's actually a great idea, but if it's going to be restricted to only being spawned at Warpgates it might as well be its own Vehicle.

It could be called the "Hack-Rabbit", and could provide that "mobile target" robocpf1 was talking about through completely player generated means!

It'd probably be the only Vehicle you'd need to Certify into, via the Leadership tree.
It'd also be completely defenseless, rather slow despite the name (perhaps it had rabbit ear antenna?), and the hacking effect won't stack (maybe even having enemy Hack-Rabbits cancel each-other out), but also comes with the ability to repair and restock friendly Vehicles by default.

This would make them the perfect, non-invasive way to herd the Zerg, by giving them something they know will draw the enemy out for a fight!

We could then call these Zerg the "Hounds!"

Defence does not need to reward more XP.
Defence needs to be possible. Right now it's more a case of counter-offensive or counter-attack.
I've yet to find a real bottleneck in terrain that can be held.
Virtually every bridge you can just go around, over, under or ignore.

We need both impassable terrain and ways to make an area no mans land.
Please bring back the PS1 CE model of many individual items, doing significantly less damage each. There is still boomers/c4 for the instakill wetwork - I want to deny a mountain pass not just 8m x 1m this side of the shield.
Well I don't agree with defense not rewarding XP, since that leads to people not even bothering to resecure just so they can swoop in and get a capture bonus, but I do agree that defensibility of terrain definitely needs a long hard look at and that more could be done to give players the tools needed to increase the defensibility of a base.

Deployment reductions? Hardly. I'd rather we could spawn everywhere - but the further away it was the longer 'respawn' time incurred.
Which suggests another hex benefit for spec ops : something that massively increases the spawn timers if not defended.
I can redeploy in 25 seconds across about 5 hexes .. so I can cross the map
in about 1min 30. Or I can /suicide and hop in 15 sec blocks.
Yeah, like I said before it is a pain in ass to need to break out a Vehicle every-time you need to reinforce another front, so this makes logical sense.

...I would also like to see Sunderer-AMS spawns take LONGER to recharge then a base's Spawn tubes, since it's kind of ridiculous that I'm able to respawn at a S-AMS 300 meters away faster then the room I just got run over exciting.

I'd like to be able to bind at a base.
Also good.

I do think that for the first 12hrs of actual in-game time new players should be able to spawn wherever they want in friendly territory without timer penalty. Part of the training/familiarisation process.
(Thats per account, not for new characters!!)
Eh, it'd at least make things less frustrating...

I saw someone comment to use smaller transport units etc. That does nothing for small groups.
Well to be fair, they would be useful...

I mean, how many half filled Galaxies do you see flying around?

What helps is bring down the sheer numerical spam of things. FORCIBLY CREWED VEHICLES (no seat switching either!) would help small units MUCH MORE.

Why? Because one crew tank is much easier to deal with than three solo tanks, simply because you need say 6-9 rockets to kill the one, not 15-27, the rate of fire towards the small units would be smaller as well.
Hell, I wouldn't mind them being able to switch seats AND giving the Driver control of the Machine Gun mount, the need for an independant Driver and Main Gunner is enough of a trade off all-around to make the REAL one-man tank, the Lightning, an actual viable option.

...And before you start with "Oh, but what about the Magrider?" know that the solution is EASY, albeit unwanted.
Just switch the hull mounted Main Cannon out for Secondary Turret options and make beefed up variants of the Saron HRB (http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/Saron_HRB) into the Main Turrets!

And quit moaning about "Oh, but we won't be able to shoot Infantry with the Hull gun!"
You know as well as I do that the Roomba is a Manmower and won't have any trouble in that regard. :p

[tkoreaper]

To answer the original question of the thread: No. Larger outfits do not hurt the game.

If a large outfit exists, it is because players enjoy being a part of something greater than themselves and that outfit is clearly doing something right to be recruiting so many people.

That being said, I'd like to address something that has been mentioned before but I would like to reiterate again on this thread:

Planetside 2 tactics are a joke. There I said it. Planetside 2 tactics are 110% a complete and utter piece of crap. In a larger outfit, I can tell you those leaders always send air, armor and infantry together or rolling close together.

Does this make them a zerg rush? It's debatable. I've heard both sides of the argument so many times I can tell you it largely depends on the situation. When you've got 1 infantry platoon with an armor platoon and air squads all on small outpost, I'd call that a zerg rush. However, because some of the outfits are more organized, they can redeploy in a pinch to attack an enemy force of equal-greater numbers.

However, the point still remains that the sure, guaranteed 100% fool proof way to win is overwhelming numbers. There's simply no counter to numbers and I do not believe that should EVER be any counter to being over-run with enemies. What there needs to be is more secondary objectives, as mentioned before, for smaller outfits or squads. I'm not exactly sure how these secondary objectives play into the overall meta-game, but it's something that is desperately needed in the game right now.

I agree with most of what you said. Large outfits simply don't ruin the game for me. I believe we're all just creating a problem that doesn't really exist. YES, there are large outfits. And YES there are many smaller ones, but we're all trying to achieve the same goals on the same side. There is absolutely no way to prove that when you see a ton of people, they're a zerg. Yes, it's a crap-load of people, but there's nothing to say that they aren't actually organized... Hell, it's more of a zerg when you have many many smaller groups each organized differently than a much larger group containing several platoons which are under a single command. And there's absolutely no way to prove that an single organized platoon is better than a much larger group when they can be just as organized... People need to pull their head out of their ass and grow up.

This is all just an excuse IMO. Should there be more to do than there is now? Hell yes, but don't blame the lack of things to do on large outfits... They're just trying to consolidate the empire and bring a fun/organized atmosphere to the masses. It's better that we stand together as an empire than differentiate ourselves... it does the empire no good when people harass and belittle one another. So forget all this garbage about larger outfits... look at the real problem!

[Sledgecrushr]

What Tkoreaper said.

[Kiljosh]

I am a member of the 666th Devil Dogs on Connery. I am not going to read 15 pages of replies to get up to speed I just wanted to put input in.

As a member of a large outfit, I see battles where we steamroll the defenders. I've been in battles where we are steamrolled. The problem is people see a tag on someone's name and figure that everyone with that tag is doing the same thing pushing the same objective. If this was the case the faction would lose ground elsewhere. i.e..NC push TR on Indar, while all forces are focused to the north the VS push into us from the west.

That is a zerg move. No strategy, just put everyone on one objective. The 666th has a few people commanding ground, air, and mechanized forces all at once. We do not simply zerg a waypoint. We usually have 1-2 squads on a point while the rest of the platoon/s secure surrounding areas. Armor squads watch for enemy armor and intercept. Air watches our armor's air space and keeps them safe. Even with all of this organization we still lose fights.

If major outfits are the problem then why does a major outfit still have trouble capping a continent? Because the zerg won't have it. Like it or not the zerg is the best defense against us larger outfits. They may be mindless but while we fight that zerg you speak of our numbers don't matter. So you smaller outfits should take advantage of this and split our forces by flanking/back capping.

I guess I'm saying there is no shame in being organized. If a large group of people want to be led by those with some strategic awareness and sense then what is wrong with that?

As a side note, I would LOVE to see a server or 3 implemented to accept outfit transfers. That way the large outfits could fight each other. If all 3 factions had serious coordination we would see some epic battles.

But guess what, even if that happens and the big outfits are centralized to a few servers, the zerg will still rule the "other" servers. Big outfits are not the problem, the mindless zerg is. Big outfits are the counter to those mindless zergs, zergs are the counter(along with other big outfits) to big outfits! If you small-medium sized outfits feel like you can't do anything then why don't you step away from the zerg war, cap somewhere else, and try to draw their forces away? Focus your forces on ONE objective in the zerg war. Hold that generator! Take down a satellite or two. Hell, camp a spawn if that's your thing.

These are just my opinions and don't necessarily reflect those of the 666th. We as an outfit operate under a Code of Conduct and it states among other things to treat others with respect. It's a part of why I joined. Not to zerg, not to win, but to be organized and be a part of a group of people that act with honor. -Orcuss

[Hosp]

I'll go so far as to agree zergfits aren't necessarily the problem.

The problem is more of:

PS1 = Skill >= Numbers
PS2 = Skill <= Numbers*

*(with extreme bias in favor of numbers).

[Hamma]

I would like to limit large outfits from using the "everyone suicide and..." device. Malorn really sung up the praises of The Enclave, but this is their primary tactic, which is both lame in general (death traveling) and far too effective of a power multiplier. I loathed taking part in it, because it felt spastic, abusive, and flat out boring (win win win and maybe have someone to shoot at with 50 other people shooting at them too...), but the tactic worked so who was I to say anything. The trouble is, it works for all large groups at the expense of the game.

This should not be a viable tactic this command shouldn't even be in the game anymore.

[Whiteagle]

This should not be a viable tactic this command shouldn't even be in the game anymore.
I was going to say wasn't that removed when we switched from Beta... but then I realised we're still IN Beta...

[Hamma]

It disappeared then came back again sadly and it shouldn't be allowed this game already has to few logistics than allowing constant re-deployments from WG en mass.

[ringring]

It disappeared then came back again sadly and it shouldn't be allowed this game already has to few logistics than allowing constant re-deployments from WG en mass.
And yet, redeploy only takes seconds longer ......


and this is not about Devildogs, there's no need to be so defensive. Look, I play on Miller, I've never seen Devildogs or The Enclave in action, nor AT come to that even though I played PS1 on Gemini :p

[angryphoenix]

I'm going to flip this conversation and lay blame on the small outfits for zerging.

Most big outfits are organised. Take multiple points across the map, communicate and work as a team. They strike fast and move on to their next objective. They are not the zerg.

The zerg are all your small outfits that have no ability to communicate properly. You all gather up and like lemmings, battle your way from one base to the next.

Look at the combined force of a zerg attack. Do you only see one Outfit tag? Probably not. It's just a bunch of solo players and small outfits rolling along with the flow because they have no idea what else to do or how to make a difference.

Now with that said I also think it's a problem with the games design that has made it impossible for the majority of the player populous to work together other than in a Zerg way. More tools are needed.

So when it comes to the zerg I think everyone here bitching that it's the big outfits fault I really think you need to look at how you, as a small outfit, play the game. Big outfits make the game more fun when they are well organised like the one I am in.

[ringring]

I'm going to flip this conversation and lay blame on the small outfits for zerging.

Most big outfits are organised. Take multiple points across the map, communicate and work as a team. They strike fast and move on to their next objective. They are not the zerg.

The zerg are all your small outfits that have no ability to communicate properly. You all gather up and like lemmings, battle your way from one base to the next.

Look at the combined force of a zerg attack. Do you only see one Outfit tag? Probably not. It's just a bunch of solo players and small outfits rolling along with the flow because they have no idea what else to do or how to make a difference.

Now with that said I also think it's a problem with the games design that has made it impossible for the majority of the player populous to work together other than in a Zerg way. More tools are needed.

So when it comes to the zerg I think everyone here bitching that it's the big outfits fault I really think you need to look at how you, as a small outfit, play the game. Big outfits make the game more fun when they are well organised like the one I am in.
Nobody is saying it's the big outfit's fault as far as I can see. If GOTR, Devildogs and The Enclave can organise themselves, good for them.

[MuNrOe]

Going to re post this here as it may have been overlooked in my wall of text.

The first step is re-designing the bases with defense in mind along with non vehicular camp able spawn rooms and objectives that all link up to each other in a closed infantry only environment.

This will fix allot of the problems in the game.

As well as this

VECH job should be to push the open field battles and contain an area to PREVENT THE ENEMY FROM PULLING VECH. They should not be Camping Objectives or paths to Objectives. Or Camping Spawn rooms or Preventing the enemy from defending these objectives WHAT SO EVER.

This includes air. If the enemy wants to pull vech then they should risk taking a tank shell or liberator round to the face. Not if they are trying to defend an objective or simply walking out of their spawn room. This is whats killing defense this is the main problem not how many enemy run into a base but the defenders even standing a chance at defending the base.

You can run 10 guys out of a spawn room together to push enemy infantry off an objective heavily outnumbered. You cannot do this against tanks or aircraft because it results in instant death.

This is what PS1 had that made it worthwhile defending a base. PS2 currently lacks this and is what is missing. If people had a chance to defend a Base they would but forcing them to pull back and grab a vech each time a tank or 2 rolls into their spawn room is whats killing the fight and killing the game.

Bases should consist of the following.

Outer spawn points (Like the towers in PS1)

An outer shell (Like the walls in PS1) This is where you can defend against inbound tanks aircraft. This is where you pull your vech from and defend against the swarm of tanks/aircraft/sundys ect. (Defend the walls Defend the Vech Pad)

An Inner Objective based Capture system (CC /Gen/Spawnroom) This is where your capture point is your spawn room your generators. This area should be completely void of ANY vech and should be focused on the capture of the base. Every Objective relating to the function and Defence of the base should be back to here. This area should have multiple avenues or paths of assault so that fights do not get bogged down and the span room should have at least 3 exits into this interior that exit out to different sections of the internal base structure. This way the enemy has to lock down all 3 exits to successfully capture the base.

The generator should be close to the spawn room and the Capture Points should be closer to the Attackers entry side of the base (About half way this determines the enemy's ability to capture the point).

This is where your cloaker sneaks into and chucks a virus on the base or disables an entire wall of turrets. Your gal drop drops on and pop's the spawn generator and holds it forcing the enemy to retreat inside the base. Keep your fancy shield generators and such for the external fight, Have everything crucial to the operation of the base inside void of any vech.

I grantee you that if you implement this system in all bases then you will see large fights everywhere. You will see people defending bases. If your going to keep the hex system make it that the enemy cannot cap any bases past a base untill they have taken the base.

[ThisGuy]

As a member of a small-ish outfit on the NC, the New Conglomerate Golden Eagles, I can honestly say that beyond more tools to communicate at a higher level (between outfits), I enjoy the way the game feels right now.

When we run our organised ops, we're normally very effective. We run one or two sunderers, rarely full, but have camped warpgates or defended outposts from forces multiple times our size. One particular fight I was very proud of was when we decided to defend Tawrich. We had about one full squad running and we decided to all go engineers with one or two medics and keep all the turrets on the tech plant operational. We ended up holding off huge tank pushes, picking off sunderers and scaring off liberators, scythes and galaxies with no assistance from the massive zerg outfit that was farming at the tech plant. We won that fight.

We get frustrated occasionally because we really do need larger numbers in some fights but a lot of the time, that's because we're throwing ourselves at the enemy zerg and getting destroyed. I feel like we make a difference when we play smart.

There are a few ways that small outfits' effectiveness could be improved. The tech plant is a good example because you can teleport from the spawn room to the main facility and then teleport or use the elevators to get to the turret platform. That's a nice way for a small force to do a lot (there's a lot of firepower up there that's easy to defend thanks to the proximity of all the turrets to each other and the protection from air to ground attacks).

I don't really know how to improve things on the attacking side with the current capture mechanics. For the large facilities that have many capture points, you have to divide your force to capture it quickly so those are a numbers game. The smaller facilities normally aren't a problem because it's rare to find a large force defending a small facility. Bio labs can sometimes be taken with a small force if you max crash it or are lucky enough to find a gap in the defense but usually, the teleporter rooms are camped and the landing pads are a massive farm.

In terms of metagame, it'd be cool to see what outfits are currently on a continent or maybe a leaderboard of sorts for outfits. As a small outfit, we feel like we don't get noticed a lot because we normally aren't in the meat-grinder where everyone else is (though we always seem to have the 666 show up just after we secure a place. They must recognize the name by now). It'd be cool to see a list of outfits on and maybe what their current platoon(s) waypoint(s) are. Maybe a checkbox where you can choose to see the waypoints of other outfits.

[Whiteagle]

The tech plant is a good example because you can teleport from the spawn room to the main facility...
...They took that out...

[GreatMazinkaise]

...They took that out...


Once again because smart players were farming stupid ones with it... we are apparently not allowed to farm idiots. Instead we have to swarm undefended bases with vehicles and pretend we're doing something...

You don't even have to add hack and hold back in the game. Just allow defenders who flip all the points back simultaneously to reset the base cap; it'd at least open the possibility of fast resecures.

Edit: A thing about zergfits: I don't care if you think you're tactical and organized. It simply doesn't matter... the game's organizational and tactical requirements stop at "bring all your numbers to converge on a small area" and "bring flak and aircraft". Nothing else has any bearing on an empire's success in a fight. You're winning with numbers, not with organization, because organization really doesn't have any significant effect.

[Graywolves]

I think a matter of perspective is barring progress on this discussion.

Instead of wording it as a problem with the effectiveness of throwing numbers at locations. We need to look at it as an issue with the inability to actually use small numbers effectively or hamper attacks on a wide number of outposts - Of a limiting and bland meta-game that tosses players into the same locations or a very limited room for targets and creativity.


I really liked what someone said earlier (pointman) that there needs to be room for the players to really develop the metagame with tools available. Right now our tools are points along the frontlines and satellites or side objectives that only effect that base. any mechanic needs to be developed with the fact that players are infinitely more clever than a set of developers ever can be, and if it can be gamed, it will be, in ways the developers don't intend or simply never thought of. So instead of creating mechanics, create a set of tools for players, and let us figure it out.


You can be useful with small numbers but only in a "cool they had to send an entire platoon to take out half a squad." There's some creative things that can be done too but doing this isn't tangible.

Did you trick them into sending a large force to where there is little? Yes, and they're already moving somewhere else since finishing a defense gives no reward and that territory was probably the only empty one on the entire front.

Honestly though unless you consciously make an effort to make an AA net it only takes a couple liberators or rocket pads to shutdown almost every outpost. Which is fine, I'd be more ok with it if more territories weren't completely open to air.

There's been many excellent posts on ways to implement better strategic or tactical assets and I'm sure the developers can think of a few too. But right now the game is almost nothing but a movement to contact mission with no variable. The lack of diversity effects everyone and makes the game less fun.

tl;dr- Forcing 3x or more your own numbers to push you away is awesome but boring and provides nothing more than self-satisfaction.

I want more ways to be annoying to the enemy and more room for creativity.

[Pella]

Made a thread about this a little while ago. Even had one at the start o beta.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/outfits-clans-have-no-place.68243/

[Blynd]

there needs to be a serious discussion between the devs on how to fix the base design cause bases should be designed with defence in mind no army or country would ever build something like the amp stations or tech plants in such an easily attacked and taken over manner they would be made as fortresses due to their stratigic value.
Bio labs are the bench mark for defensabilty atm tanks play their part to a point and then its down to the infantry. the new conts need to be the ones the new bases hit then go through the continents fixing the bases to make the spawns somewhere that cant just be farmed by 10 mossys and 5 prowlers while they wait for the base to flip.

[Canaris]

I had a great discussion on Twitter last night about this and wanted to bring it here.

First off let me start this thread by saying this is NOT an attack on specific outfits. I will not allow people to argue about specific outfits, this discussion is about the size of outfits in general and whether or not you think they hurt the game. Also, I don't want to hear bs like "ohh you're doing it wrong" etc.

This has bothered me since late beta and is becoming more and more of an issue (imo) as of late. I don't have solution for it because there really isn't one but I want to see what peoples thoughts are.

My outfit is smaller in size compared to most. We typically run about a half a platoon or so. We are finding it difficult to find a solid role for us in the game that isn't boring and doesn't involve getting steamrolled. This is becoming more and more difficult as time goes on. Huge outfits are able to put 100 or more people or more on an objective and essentially win with numbers in almost all fights. We are able to hold off, but it's simply a matter of time until we are struck down due to sheer numbers.

Smaller outfits are finding that they have to disband and join larger outfits if they want to even have fun, causing them to lose their own identity and be absorbed into massive teams because there are no recruits left to take. For me community is more important to a game than the game itself, hence why I've been doing this all these years.

Is having one massive outfit per empire what the developers intended? Is spam inviting every no outfit person in the game really a viable recruiting effort? How many of these people even know what they are joining?

What is everyones thoughts on this issue?

This probably has already been said a few times but a great one is to form outfit alliances with others, share your VOIP and coordinate operations together, you don't become a massive outfit and can retain your individual identity.
B.R.T.D. has been sharing space with loads of other excellent TR outfits for years. We just work together for a greater goal.

[ringring]

Made a thread about this a little while ago. Even had one at the start o beta.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/outfits-clans-have-no-place.68243/

Yep. Since then they've responded by adding in barriers within the large bases and around the outposts, but these are really sticking plasters and haven't fundamentally changed anything.

And the latest change they did to the tech plant was really bizarre.

[Punker]

and this is not about Devildogs, there's no need to be so defensive.

Precisely! noone has mentioned the devil dogs or any other zergfit for that matter. If people would take the time to read the posts here they would realise that the issue is more to do with the game.

[Whiteagle]

Once again because smart players were farming stupid ones with it... we are apparently not allowed to farm idiots. Instead we have to swarm undefended bases with vehicles and pretend we're doing something...
Well to be fair the Spawns in this game are designed to induce stupidity...

I mean, opaque boxes with no window, with the only outside visibility provided by the few small exits whose shields are the ONLY protection you are given...

...I feel we should probably focus on more immediate means of strengthening bases...

...Namely, replacing those deathtrap sardine cans that are small spawn buildings!

Let's face it, they are probably the worst offenders when it comes to camping, offering no real protection against enemy forces while simultaneously being more of a hindrance to defense then an asset.

A couple of days ago, an idea thread on "fortifications" got me thinking about Platoon Leaders having access to deployable Spawn Buildings...

Now the viability of such a concept is debatable, but it did lead me to a small spawn building design that would be a VAST improvement over the current boxes.

It would be a mushroom-shaped structure, a squat tower from which the base can be defended from.

The trunk of the building itself has no entrances, just a set of two spawn tubes, equipment terminals, and a shielded elevator for going to and from the second floor.
The second floor itself would be an octangular arrangement of bastions and machicolations, roofed in such a way that only the outermost lips of the bastions would be open to overhead bombardment.
This would allow the spawn building itself to be used as a defensive hard-point as well as providing defenders four potential sheltered exits down through the machicolations...

...The only downside is that Light Assaults will be the only ones able to get back INTO the spawn after dropping, but this could be partially alleviated by external equipment terminals...

Thoughts?
I originally discarded the notion of putting exits on the trunks of my Alamo Mushrooms in order to keep the small floor design from being to cluttered and/or the possibility of high explosive spam still being able to harm those inside, but I'm now wondering if they shouldn't have a couple just so you can see what's going on outside...

You don't even have to add hack and hold back in the game. Just allow defenders who flip all the points back simultaneously to reset the base cap; it'd at least open the possibility of fast resecures.
This would be a great idea, since it's rather frustrating to try and save a base at the last minute only for it to fall because the other guys just kept throwing a trickle of Zerg at it.

Edit: A thing about zergfits: I don't care if you think you're tactical and organized. It simply doesn't matter... the game's organizational and tactical requirements stop at "bring all your numbers to converge on a small area" and "bring flak and aircraft". Nothing else has any bearing on an empire's success in a fight. You're winning with numbers, not with organization, because organization really doesn't have any significant effect.
Mhhhh... Yeah, he's got a point...

I mean, even if you are seperating your squads and coordinating your efforts, right now you're doing little more then spreading your numarical advantage around instead of clumping it together.
I'd hate to call you a Zergfit though, just because you are still better then CERTAIN PEOPLE who uses their "Outfit" as a means of herding their entire Faction on a single point...

I think a matter of perspective is barring progress on this discussion.

Instead of wording it as a problem with the effectiveness of throwing numbers at locations. We need to look at it as an issue with the inability to actually use small numbers effectively or hamper attacks on a wide number of outposts - Of a limiting and bland meta-game that tosses players into the same locations or a very limited room for targets and creativity.
Very true, one could hope that a true Inter-Continental meta-game would help this; spreading each Faction's Zerg over large enough fronts that single coordinated squads could do things to create effective dents in the line, but more should probably be done to improve the meta-game anyways.

I really liked what someone said earlier (pointman) that there needs to be room for the players to really develop the metagame with tools available. Right now our tools are points along the frontlines and satellites or side objectives that only effect that base.
Indeed this might be an issue due to every Continent having a foothold for every Faction, resulting in each of them constantly banging at each-others front doors, but could more meta-game improvements really hurt?

You can be useful with small numbers but only in a "cool they had to send an entire platoon to take out half a squad." There's some creative things that can be done too but doing this isn't tangible.
Yeah, an Infiltration Squad should be softening up targets through hacking, but that's rather pointless when the enemy doesn't even get a chance to leave their spawn building...

Did you trick them into sending a large force to where there is little? Yes, and they're already moving somewhere else since finishing a defense gives no reward and that territory was probably the only empty one on the entire front.
I've hated this issue since Beta (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=47956), no one bothers to stand guard at a fucking military base!

Honestly though unless you consciously make an effort to make an AA net it only takes a couple liberators or rocket pads to shutdown almost every outpost. Which is fine, I'd be more ok with it if more territories weren't completely open to air.
Yeah, this is what I had in mind when coming up with the Alamo Mushrooms; yes they can be overwhelmed by a large enough force of Tanks or Aircraft, but they are at least a miniature keep from which Infantry can actually put up a fight from.

[basti]

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)


1. Right now, resources are eighter completly useless (you get to much to really care), or just annoying as fuck (you dont get enough to do anything. Depens fully on the capture status of the continent your on.
I think the whole "you get X resources for this territory per tick" system just doesnt work. It rewards the empire that is doing good a lot, while punishing the empire that is doing bad. Now, thing is, the empire that is getting pushed back usually just lost a bunch of vehicles in the process of being pushed back. Now they also get less resources. At some point, they cant even defend anymore, and just get steamrolled. No idea how to fix that tho, any idea i come up with breaks right away. :/

2. Yes, absolutly. The whole capture mechanic right now needs to change. A Flat out timer a la hack and hold is likley the solution. It gives everyone a clear idea about how long they got time to get a resecure going, rather than having a completly random ticker. Seen Buzz yell quite loud once on the stream about that, as a outpost you guys tried to defend flipped within seconds, way to fast to mount any attempt to resecure.
So, Hack and hold, please. The more surrounding territory you own, the lower the time needed to hold the hack. But, once the hack is on, the time doesnt change, even if surrounding territorys flip owner.
Should work well for Techplants and Amp stations, as they need a resecure from the outside, rather than a push from the inside like biolabs.


3. The defense XP bonus is good, but people dont realize that its there. So, it needs to be more obvious that you get a bonus for defending.
Maybe, instead of giving the bonus to all XP right away, save it up to give it out whenever a defence is over (whenever you leave the territory / loose the base / dont get any XP for x Minutes while still in the territory). People would still get exactly the same, but it would be more obvious to them what they get.
I bet after such a change, people would yell that they now get to much XP for defending. ;)

4. No. Thats not helping to fix the problem, it just annoys people. A vehicle zerg only exists for a short amount of time, till it gets taken out. Usually, people then dont just jump into tanks right away again, but instead spawn at the nearest AMS.
What we need are more effective ways to slow down a vehicle zerg. More CE tools maybe. I would suggest a drastic change to mines: Cut the damage down to 25%, up the amount of Mines Engineers carry around. The idea is to create big minefields again that dont kill vehicles right away, but hinder their movement. Well placed minefields could then work quite well together with HA and Tanks to quickly take out a vehicle zerg.
Also, maybe nerf The standard guns infantary Damage. If infantary has a better chance against Tanks, the whole issue may go away completly.

5. Yes. Closest 2-3 AMS within 500M (to avoid the AMS hopping that happens quite often), Closest Outpost, closest Place to spawn big vehicles. Thats it.
Prevent people from spawn hopping around, and you should be good.

[Kracken]

I agree, that covered everything i had to say.

Since beta I wondered why SOE never made use of the underground doorway art assets to lead into actaul underground facilities. Ti Alloys could connect to The Crown, Crossroads, and Zurvan, with some interesting facilities and capture points underground as well as paths to move troops on foot to different locations. I posted this months ago -they could even have environmental barrier, like gas leaks, that can be caused and repaired by any side, as ways to effect traffic though the tunnels (and that sort of thing).

Side note, I was sad to see KrakenOne, a fellow SWG vet, being such a douche. "go play something else", is not a valid statement to make towards Hamma or the good majority of people who post here. PSU is where those who have been invested in the franchise for years go to talk. If they don't like something, that something is wrong. Many others will come and go, but the PSU community will remain the integral core of PS2, so given their experience in PS1, their staying power, qne their open pocket books, it would be wise to take their feedback to heart, even if it does not make sense to you. Simply put, PSU knows better. :groovy:

PSU does not know better, that is ridiculous statement. They know better what they alone prefer. I've met them, talked to them heard them have conversations, we have a different view of what fun is. I'm cool with that and understand in an MMO what is fun for some won't be for others.

In SWG I was never for limiting guilds or even having instances in anyway shape or form that limited the number of participants. I play online MMOs for the MASSIVE part. It is the persistent maps and the MASSIVE part of PS2 that got me here, my first shooter ever. All I did was research FPS and relay that there are two titles out there that limit the size of the team/group/guild; therefor there would be no large outfit for small outfits to have to worry about or interfere with them.

I'd much rather have seen this titled how to make small outfits more effective and the thread be about tools or mechanics that can be implemented to enhance small group play in a game designed, packaged and sold as a massive all out war.

I also look at PS1 peeps as the prepatch 7 Jedi in SWG, all they did was post and lament on what they lost. Rarely if ever did they do anything to move the existing product forward or improve anyone's game play. Were some of them valuable, hell yes; Badger, RedDwarf, Onyx to list a few. Thing is PS1 is still here.

We are not playing PS1 it is a different game, we are playing PS2.

Quite honestly I wish no one told me about this thread. You'll fine these are my only posts on these boards outside of our recruitment thread, and will most likely be my last. I've posted three times and the attack or insult has been left each time. Point in case this post, and I fully expect more insults and flat out falsehoods to be posted in response to this post.

Additionally, the only reason I came back to this thread is someone said PG thinks we have an issue with them in this thread; this is utterly not true. If there is an issue all they have to do is talk to myself, Acidfire or PIG. I'm unaware of any issue.

[Kracken]

I want to smack you upside your head for your hubris. We tried being cooperative with your outfit, but we got shat on instead by your leaders. So you know what we did? We said fuck that.

I've never interacted with you until your insults here.

No idea who you are or who you think you contacted (http://i.imgur.com/AUNmb.png). Feel free to PM me on the PS2 boards any TS information you want and I'll hear your issue. I've seen the PG peeps about on Connery, and fought at the same points, never seen an issue.

[Tatwi]

It's all about respect. This thread was started by the site admin to talk about the elephant in the room that is hurting the game. You came in here acting like the big man on campus who knows better, suggesting some insulting garbage (go play a different game) and then got butt hurt when people called you on it. Mistakes happen, but you have to own up to them, Kracken. Hamma gave you a pass, which I hope you appreciate.

The people here are the people who kept the Planetside franchise alive enough to deserve a second game to be made. Show some respect.

[Duckforceone]

well to respond to your first post Hamma.

No i don't think this game needs everyone to join these outfits. And here's why.

Before i joined the 666, i was in a tiny outfit, that rarely had many people online on connery, due to almost everyone else in our huge outfit, moved to briggs (yes might sound confusing)

One of my solutions, to make the game more fun, for those of us left behind, was to be where the good action was, when i was running a squad for my outfit.

I went about this, by doing a few things.
1 : getting the command channel, so i could ask, and talk to other leaders.
2 : Starting to contact the larger outfits, to ask them if there was a way i could get in contact with them when we were online, so we could know where they were heading, and perhaps what we might be able to help them with.
3 : Finding a good assault, and then tagging along with my squad. Seeing what they did, and then thinking about what we could do to assist. That could be to fly a lib to bomb for the assault, or take out and guard a shield generator, or provide AA support and other things.

So in short, i found it rather easy to play without being in a large outfit (i changed for other reasons)

But you do have to work a bit for it... but so does the big outfits, and they have to work harder.

I know smaller outfits, that does nothing but specialize in tanks and air support, they just fly most of the time to bomb, and then they deploy tanks when air is on cooldown.

[CrankyTRex]

Of all the things discussed regarding taming the zerg, I think actual doors will do more to solve the problem than anything else.

[FireWater]

Hey all,

FireWater from the Sentienls here, we are a mid-sized (around maybe 50 or so active members, maybe less) but we are a very powerful force on Watterson Vanu.

It seems that small outfits have challenges that large outfits do not. This is an FPS MMO, that advertises large multi-weapon approach (i.e. airforce, armor, infantry) as well as CQB. I'm sure planetside 1 players would even agree that the large scale combat was why they were drawn to the game in the first place.

It seems that there are combination of things that need to occur to assist with the solving of the problem.

Lets talk about what the community can do to help themselves, to 100% blame the developers for the challenges of small squads is ineffective.

1) Small outfits can network with other outfits that share their values on their server. The Sentinels have joined a Vanu Sovereignty alliance on Watterson, with some pretty good outfits that vary in size. We are usually able to network pretty effectively most nights to assist. We or another outfit comes up with a Macro plan (i.e. which territories to go after) and each outfit comes up with their way to take their respective territories.

2) Development of better squad tactics. This game is still young. I'm not confident that both squads large and small have found not only necessary the best tactics or class compositions, but the best load outs etc.... My point is there is a lot to learn in this game still. The key is to absorb effective tactics from outfits, both large and small.

3) Individual Combat Skill. There is always a way to improve combat skill. I see a lot of players that I go up against that I murder 1v1 with very little damage. Granted I have a large amount of PC FPS experience (16 years, competitive) there is room for improvement and I try to learn from every encounter I both win or lose. I'm curious to see how individual players complaining here do in 1v1 combat situations that exist whether you are fighting a zerg or not. There are different weapon tweaks and tactics, as well as training raw aim that occur for all players. In my opinion, planetside 2 has a higher skill cap due to adding locational damage that was not present in planetside 1. Reflex aiming for the head, and knowing when to get out of combat is a useful thing to learn as an individual player. The reality is that there are a lot of gamers out there that will make excuses for their own poor play. The developers can only balance the game, not the players.

The reason why I mention these things is to empower the community and give them ammunition when presenting a potential game change to the developers.

At the same time, there is only so much the community can do, and I do believe that the developers can assist as well.

1) Make Sundy spawn timers longer for each person that wants to spawn at a sundy. For example lets say the base sundy spawn time is 15 seconds, and 5 people spawn in, each of those 5 people would add 1 second of time to those who want to spawn in as well. The sundy would add that time to its base time as people spawn in, and as less people spawn it would tick down back to baseline of 15 seconds.

The reason I suggest this is because a lot of people mention that its not the initial push of a zerg force that is the problem per se. It is the multiple waves of zerg that pose a problem when defending. Capping Sundy spawn times would limit repeat reinforcements. However it will not stop the initial zerg.

Still though, I think it would be valuable to tweak sunderer spawn times when attacking, giving the defenders a break, especially since a defending squad is usually much smaller than an attacking squad.

2) Take out the Adjacency rule, allow smaller squads to attack any territory with out a major penalty. This could potentially force either a zerg force to split up AND/OR force smaller outfits to defend against smaller deep territory strikes, which would give a role to smaller outfits, that can contribute to the overall fight.

3) Put back defense lock down timers. I know a lot of players have challenges with that, but I feel it would give a sense of completion to a battle, and give a break to the defenders from an endless onslaught of zerg, in combination with redoing mobile spawn timing, give defenders time after a rough battle to regroup and clean up and prepare for rounds 2 3 4 etc.... I would suggest a lockdown timer of 1 minute for single point outposts and 30 seconds for each additional cap point in the territory.

I think its ineffective to expect the developers to solve an issue that is somewhat social (i.e. stronger networked outfits work better than outfits working in silos). That is a community issue that can only be solved by us.

There are some game balancing issues, particularly sundy spawn timers that can greatly effect the outcome of a battle and minimize multiple waves of zerg. A combination of both community and developer solutions I believe is the key to giving smaller outfits a stronger role in Planetside 2

[tkoreaper]

Edit: A thing about zergfits: I don't care if you think you're tactical and organized. It simply doesn't matter... the game's organizational and tactical requirements stop at "bring all your numbers to converge on a small area" and "bring flak and aircraft". Nothing else has any bearing on an empire's success in a fight. You're winning with numbers, not with organization, because organization really doesn't have any significant effect.

This is a bit hypocritical... Smaller groups/outfits do THE EXACT SAME THING. Organization does have an effect... every single person plays differently. If we all played the same and thought the same way then there would be no reason to group up and organize. Organization brings structure and focus... I'm sorry you feel that it's just zerging, but really it's not.

Your post would hold much more merit if you gave examples of things that would require higher "organizational and tactical" skills.

[Punker]

examples of things that would require higher "organizational and tactical" skills. (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=869433&postcount=150)

As i said earlier people should be reading all of the posts in this thread instead of cherry picking quotes to reply to.

Just as an example, these are also things your zergfits can do. Nobody is saying nerf large outfits.

Edit: In fact, that post i linked was from a member of one of the largest VS outfits from PS1, it seems that everyone is on the same page except for one particular zergfit that has put themselves on the defensive.

[Saintlycow]

Hey all,

2) Take out the Adjacency rule, allow smaller squads to attack any territory with out a major penalty. This could potentially force either a zerg force to split up AND/OR force smaller outfits to defend against smaller deep territory strikes, which would give a role to smaller outfits, that can contribute to the overall fight.



I dunno about this. It could be exploited by larger groups of people who could easily back cap.

Personally, I think resources should be world wide, perhaps gaining 75% (ball park figure) of other continents give outs. Of course, resource pricing would need to be adjusted, but at least the team getting steamrolled has a chance. Usually, when we're getting warpgated, is that it is extremely difficult to get the vehicles needed to gain resources. Which does make sense, but what happens is people find they can't combat the enemy, so they switch continents. If the resources were distibuted my way, the defenders would still have a disadvantage, but they would still be able to fight.

[raw]

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)


Yes, I even made a thread about that in the beta forum back then. What I'd like to see is that cooldowns go the way of the Dodo and we're only limited by ressources. I am obviously not assuming current ressource gain/drain rates. OBVIOUSLY.

The idea of ressources is great, but it's absolutely not leveraged by the game itself. They are redundant to cooldowns and are so quickly gained that by the time your tanks (or whatever) blows up you can pull a new one.

It should be possible to deny the enemy a certain ressource (infiltrators?)

I have no idea how to bring ressources into the game right now, many people need to think long and hard over that; chain Higby to his desk when he comes back from vacation, put someone with a whip behind him.

A quick thing that could be done is zeroing ressources when switching continents. that would make ressources that much more relevant and would make locking a continent more like actually locking it. That would specifically address the problem of large scale platoon operations being unable to effectively drain enemy platoons of ressources and warpgate them. What I've seen happening right now is that should one side run out of ressources, that side will simply switch to another continent, fill their ressources up and switch back. That means, currently the only way to warpgate an enemy is to have higher numbers than them and it also means that all those ressources mean even less than shit all.


* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?


Double edged sword. If you slow down the capture rate, the waiting game gets worse than it already is. Capping an empty enemy base takes too long as it is already.

A quick change here: If, say, A reads [A]0/6, I want to actually need 6 people attending the CP, otherwise the CP gradually reverts back to the previous owner. This will cull the one man ESF cappers and should make zergs clash more often. Consider, under this system a 3 point techlab would at least need 3x6=18 people just at the CPs to cap. Makes defense easier, faciliates big battles, prevents lonewulf capping. Win.


* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?


I'd go with a tentative 'yes' here, though the old beta problem of AFK farmers needs to be solved first, if you should reintroduce XP gain on successful defense.


* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?


Complicated issue. What you are currently doing to reduce the spam is allowing us to quickly dispatch tanks. (Rearshots, tank mines, ROCKETPODS :mad::mad::mad:) This is somewhat fair game, considering tanks genocide infantry, but on the other hand it means that there are a lot of frustrating situations for the tank driver and even more so for infantry going up against a tank.

PS1 did it best. The overall less volatile combat ment you could actually position your tank and on the other hand allowed infantry to engage tanks with some effectivity. Also, let's not forget a PS1 tank required two people...

...and honestly, therein lies the problem. You're not going to bring back the dedicated driver of PS1. Ok, I get that. But why on earth is the main gun STRONGER than the top mounted? That's like rubbing salt into the wound.
The presence of HE weapons is the main trigger for tank spam. Easy and lots(!) of kills are just a click of the mouse away. Why would you not spam tanks under these circumstances?

Reduce the blast radius on the standard gun, make the HE gun SUCK ASS vs. armor and probably reduce their blast radius and dmg vs infantry too and nerf the damage output of the main gun vs. the top gun, so the gunner actually becomes a gunner and isn't just the janitor. I want the gunner weapons to be more powerful than the driver weapons.

Oh and buff the damage of the AP gun!


* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)


I think this is more an issue of coordination. I would not touch this for now.

[Whiteagle]

1. Right now, resources are eighter completly useless (you get to much to really care), or just annoying as fuck (you dont get enough to do anything. Depens fully on the capture status of the continent your on.
I think the whole "you get X resources for this territory per tick" system just doesnt work. It rewards the empire that is doing good a lot, while punishing the empire that is doing bad. Now, thing is, the empire that is getting pushed back usually just lost a bunch of vehicles in the process of being pushed back. Now they also get less resources. At some point, they cant even defend anymore, and just get steamrolled. No idea how to fix that tho, any idea i come up with breaks right away. :/
Well I did have that Resource Pipeline lattice idea back in Beta...

...It would also be nice to be able to transfer Vehicles from one Continent to another as well.

2. Yes, absolutly. The whole capture mechanic right now needs to change. A Flat out timer a la hack and hold is likley the solution. It gives everyone a clear idea about how long they got time to get a resecure going, rather than having a completly random ticker. Seen Buzz yell quite loud once on the stream about that, as a outpost you guys tried to defend flipped within seconds, way to fast to mount any attempt to resecure.
So, Hack and hold, please. The more surrounding territory you own, the lower the time needed to hold the hack. But, once the hack is on, the time doesnt change, even if surrounding territorys flip owner.
Should work well for Techplants and Amp stations, as they need a resecure from the outside, rather than a push from the inside like biolabs.
Honestly, I wonder if that wasn't the plan to begin with, in order to spread the hoards out instead of allowing them to clump up on a Major Facility as soon as they had Adjacency...

...Might explain the moronic base layouts that favor counter attacking over defense, attackers come in to cap a point but then the defenders can come in and flush them out easily.

...Still bassackwards thinking though...

Also think I saw someone mention something about how the capture progress should automatically reset when all the points are re-secured...

3. The defense XP bonus is good, but people dont realize that its there. So, it needs to be more obvious that you get a bonus for defending.
Maybe, instead of giving the bonus to all XP right away, save it up to give it out whenever a defence is over (whenever you leave the territory / loose the base / dont get any XP for x Minutes while still in the territory). People would still get exactly the same, but it would be more obvious to them what they get.
I bet after such a change, people would yell that they now get to much XP for defending. ;)
Eh, I don't know if that's do-able...

I mean, the multiplier sees to apply to each individual tick, so I don't know if its possible to collect all the bonus XP and gift it on a successful defense.

...I threw out earlier the idea of a successful defense giving 40% of the that bases Capture bonus, which I think would be about right when coupled with the current defensive XP bonus.

4. No. Thats not helping to fix the problem, it just annoys people. A vehicle zerg only exists for a short amount of time, till it gets taken out. Usually, people then dont just jump into tanks right away again, but instead spawn at the nearest AMS.
What we need are more effective ways to slow down a vehicle zerg. More CE tools maybe. I would suggest a drastic change to mines: Cut the damage down to 25%, up the amount of Mines Engineers carry around. The idea is to create big minefields again that dont kill vehicles right away, but hinder their movement. Well placed minefields could then work quite well together with HA and Tanks to quickly take out a vehicle zerg.
Also, maybe nerf The standard guns infantary Damage. If infantary has a better chance against Tanks, the whole issue may go away completly.
Honestly, while I wouldn't mind way more Mines even if they did less damage, a bigger issue is that most bases are just worthless when it comes to protecting against Vehicles, let alone fighting back against them.

That's another big issue, there is no overhead cover protecting against Air Camping of the spawns, so Air Superority is winning all of the Outpost fights before they can even begin...

5. Yes. Closest 2-3 AMS within 500M (to avoid the AMS hopping that happens quite often), Closest Outpost, closest Place to spawn big vehicles. Thats it.
Prevent people from spawn hopping around, and you should be good.
Eh, I honestly don't think spawn hopping is much of an issue with the Zerg...

Plus that would cripple any remaining Spec Ops behind enemy lines...

[Dkamanus]

i couldnt help it, they just don't know how to run themselves lol

I guess I know which outfit you are talking and YES, they don't know how to organize anything with those massive numbers. We from Comando Brasil ([COBR]) roll with 20 people tops most of the time, and I'm a huge Hard-ass on my guys, but we achieve stuff. When we go and see that the *** doesn't do its job, mostly due to a total lack of brain, we go there and we TAKE that shit.

The first thing into resolving this would be a Outfit Tree, where you would increase members size and funcionalities. Something akin of EVE Online. Devs wanted to make things too open and that is taking its toll now. This Outfit Tree would be a first step on the right direction, with only being able to call upon 150 members MAX (its an outfit, not a grand army of the republic).

Second, YES, Quality can beat quantity. We've done it. Pulled three Vanguard with Sunderer and infantry support and blew 10-12 tanks before being overwhelmed due to the lack of support, between Magriders and Lightnings zerging in Eisa Tech plant. The problem is the fact that ANYONE can take a vanguard these days, and since everything is a sidegrade in the dev's minds, this makes those things VERY dangerous in massed numbers. A hard counter towards this would be to reinsert certifications to allow people to drive and fly stuff.

It happened just today. 40-50 air units, with no way to destroy them, because AA is just too weak. EVERYONE is complaining about the size the zergs are getting. The strategic value of the game is diminishing the more the zerg is uncontrolled. DEvs must stop being afraid of "hurting some players feelings" and establish some checks on this.

It's highly frustrating to see 30 rocketpod scythes on the air just ROFLStomping all the AA defense, which can't be that much, since not everyone buys AA thanks to the lack of destructibility it gives. I can't say about Devil dogs, since they seem to be a legit outfit with tactics and stuff, but *** in waterson just zergs stuff and takes nothing.

Hell, my guys seem to do the job 4 platoons seem unable to do sometimes its just silly. Not saying [COBR] is the l337est outfit on NC, but I guarantee, we take stuff. Its the least an outfit with almost 2 full squadrons should be able to do.

[Eduard Khil]

You and SOE dream, Hamma.

Even if you were to disolve large outfits, make them smaller even, that will still not stop zergfit steamrolls.

Too late, what favors zergfits is their ability to gather people, you cannot do anything about that, the entire game is a zergfest if you think about it, the only thing a zergfit does is focus that zerg into one point and move from there.