Huge Outfits - Zerg Busting

[Sardus]

First off, Hamma made a very good post and video here (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=51436) about Huge outfits and how they are causing a problem in Planetside 2.

Buzz also made a great post here (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/problems-with-planetside-2-as-i-see-them.73820/) about several critical game elements that are damaging the game.

I highly recommend you read them both.

Who Am I?
Some of you may know me as the 2nd Place Winner at the Planetside 2 Auraxis Challenge at the last SOE live convention in Las Vegas. You may also know me as the TRG outfit leader, one of the largest TR outfits currently in the game. I'm also a long time planetside player and I've been in the community for nearly nine and a half years now.


Population Problems
Without going into too much detail, I agree with Hamma's assessment about the population problems and the meta game problems. I was very vocal at SOE live to several Devs about population problems that could be a sever detriment to the game. They agreed, but I was told to come here to the community and talk to you, because that's how change is made - through all of you.

There is a problem right now when there is a 3 to 1 population on any given continent or battle on a continent (eg. a zerg focuses on one target even if populations are relatively equal). The defender don't even stand a chance. They simply get camped in whatever base that they are in by vehicles. The defenders get bored because they can't push out, and the attackers get bored because there isn't enough targets to shoot.

Simply put - the BEST battles are the big ass battles where both sides are relatively equal and players are slaying each other on both sides over and over. We don't get those anymore. It's either be swarmed, or get vehicle camped. There is no more softy versus softy slug fest anymore (besides the crown, and that doesn't really count because the defenders get such a huge advantage)... and that is what made Planetside the best.


Breaking it down
1) Numbers carry too much weight in this game because
2) Vehicles are too strong because
3) They can too easily camp bases and lock you in

But basically Zerg = win. You can't win against a zerg, or even hold out a little... you simply get zerged.


Why? Because there is a lack of Meta Game and with that - Zerg Busting
Back in Planetside 1 there were several things that you could do to either avoid the zerg, or break it up entirely. For example you had:

1) Tech Gen Dropping behind enemy lines
2) Tower camping to force the zerg to focus on one target while your allies took another
3) Latice links, that allowed you to hack enemy bases deep in the back of their territory
4) The Empire Sanctuaries and multiple continent links, which allows you to attack continents from MANY different angles, as opposed to the same 3 bases you always seem to get
5) A large emphasis on the command rank 5 system that more easily allowed commanders to guide the zerg to do more profitable things

You simply can't do that in Planetside 2... break up the fight. I actually preferred it back in beta when you could attack any hex regardless of link because that forced the zerg to spread out.


Conclusion
Personally, I don't have a problem with the big outfits and I think trying to limit their size is ridiculous. However, I'm all for giving power back to the little guys. We need to introduce more Meta Game concepts to allow the smaller groups to compete against the bigger groups on a more equal playing field.

STRATEGY SHOULD BE > ZERG TACTICS

You comments? Hopefully this thread wont go to waste.

[maradine]

You comments? Hopefully this thread wont go to waste.

What was wrong with the other two big ones currently running on the exact same topic? :)

[NewSith]

I can't but agree here.

What was wrong with the other two big ones currently running on the exact same topic? :)

I for one would let it live just because of formatting. Some people just REFUSE to do it.

[maradine]

Got me there. Long live legibility!

[Sardus]

I'd prefer not to get buried 25 pages down in a thread that's already been going on for a while. My point in particular is that I don't necessarily think the problem is the big super sized outfits - it's simply the lack of the metagame and the fact that the small guy can't compete.

I think that's the direction we need to take the conversation.

[Ghoest9]

I'd prefer not to get buried 25 pages down in a thread that's already been going on for a while. My point in particular is that I don't necessarily think the problem is the big super sized outfits - it's simply the lack of the metagame and the fact that the small guy can't compete.

I think that's the direction we need to take the conversation.


So we needed a new thread about giant zergs that never fight each other.
:)


Anyway your analysis misses one major point.

The giant zergs fight this way because the game promotes it.
Nothing forces or encourages them to collide eventually. There is no sort of funeling or choke point mechanism that eventually makes them meet.
To be honest encouraging more back hacks just gives the zerg a never ending supply of of ghost hacks to take over.


As to why the zergs exists think Ive covered that in the other thread.

[thegreekboy]

I agree. The problems, to me, consist of design and metagame flaws

1. Bases are extraordinarily hard to defend
2. There are no PS1-esque metagame elements (like sardus suggested)
-Gens that are linked to facility benefits
-Predictable battle flow
3. Tanks and such need to be heavily, HEAVILY reliant on resources, as of now they are barely a thought.
4. Take away resource benefits for territories, make them local to large bases (biolabs, amp stations, tech plants), and tie them into the gen


What this does is it creates 2 battles, persay. The main one on the frontline and the once between spec ops squads in capped facilities behind enemy lines for resources and generators.

Also base redesigns with destructible teleporter networks for the defense, higher and harder to scale walls, no entry outer shields, and better gen placement would be great as well.

[opticalshadow]

So we needed a new thread about giant zergs that never fight each other.
:)


Anyway your analysis misses one major point.

The giant zergs fight this way because the game promotes it.
Nothing forces or encourages them to collide eventually. There is no sort of funeling or choke point mechanism that eventually makes them meet.
To be honest encouraging more back hacks just gives the zerg a never ending supply of of ghost hacks to take over.


As to why the zergs exists think Ive covered that in the other thread.

he didnt miss the point, that was his point, the game has no meta game and thats the problem.

it feels like honestly SOE tried really hard to not copy ps1, they wanted ot make it clear ps2 was its own thing and a new game. and thats totally fine. but they seemed to ignore alot of things that mde ps1 work, and only took the icons of the old game. i understand wanting to inovate, but i think a big thing here they can do is look back to why some of these problems didnt happen then, and take away from it and apply it here. if you want to make the latice system something new and sexy, im all for it, but not having any system in place to control what the old one did, was an oversight IMO.

[james]

Huge outfits aren't the problem the game is sadly. The side with the more numbers/vehicle spam wins. I'm in a large outfit and it gets quite boring, rolling threw continents as there is no reason to defend. Plus grinding against mag riders for 2 hrs gets old quick. This game is basically 18th-19th century combat, walk straight at the enemy and shot till one side is dead.

[p0intman]

you are quite literally preaching to the choir.

[LoliLoveFart]

If they designed a base with a powered shield over the top so air cant dominate a base without having infantry push in to take the shield down. Also walls around the base so tanks can't just roll in and pound the entire area sort of like an amp station with a shield over the top.

The best fights are when the zergs actually meet head on too bad it never happens and when it does it's 15 minutes of vehicle spam. :(

I do support lattice links and other ways to split up the zerg. I just hope SOE do what has to be done well and fast. I do want this game to have the longevity SOE wants as well.

http://i.imgur.com/Sm2Fr.jpg

[gunshooter]

The lack of a metagame is not the only culprit. Of course the core gameplay can't be changed at this point, but beating a zerg is pretty tough when the shooter mechanics are so simple and the ttk is so quick. More enemies means a vastly higher chance that one of them might actually be able to hit the slow moving, easy to hit targets and land 7 bullets from one of their 750rpm bullet hoses.

I've never played a game where "zerg busting" was a viable thing to do where killing better players was so damn simple and easy and only required half a second of luck.

[coconut]

Breaking it down
1) Numbers carry too much weight in this game because
2) Vehicles are too strong because
3) They can too easily camp bases and lock you in

But basically Zerg = win. You can't win against a zerg, or even hold out a little... you simply get zerged.


Why? Because there is a lack of Meta Game and with that - Zerg Busting


I don't buy the "lack of metagame" argument. I'm not even sure what it's actually supposed to mean.

Any game that has a somewhat realistic emulation of real life war will present the same characteristics as real life war.
In real life, large numbers are an advantage, vehicles win over infantry, and those who control the sky control everything.
In other words, the zerg wins, vehicle spam wins, and air is OP.

What you see in the game could just be the logical consequence of a pretty good modern war simulation.

Maybe it's possible to keep tanks and air and have a fun game by partitioning the continent into zones intended for infantry vs infantry (biolabs exist, but they have issues), infantry vs tanks, air vs tanks and air vs air.

[ringring]

/agree

suggestions that numbers in outfits are the problem and that they should be artificially limited should be stamped on.

[gunshooter]

I don't buy the "lack of metagame" argument. I'm not even sure what it's actually supposed to mean.

Any game that has a somewhat realistic emulation of real life war will present the same characteristics as real life war.
In real life, large numbers are an advantage, vehicles win over infantry, and those who control the sky control everything.
In other words, the zerg wins, vehicle spam wins, and air is OP.

What you see in the game could just be the logical consequence of a pretty good modern war simulation.

Maybe it's possible to keep tanks and air and have a fun game by partitioning the continent into zones intended for infantry vs infantry (biolabs exist, but they have issues), infantry vs tanks, air vs tanks and air vs air.

Real life wars end and sometimes even have victors.

That is a metagame.

[coconut]

I don't buy the "lack of metagame" argument. I'm not even sure what it's actually supposed to mean.


Real life wars end and sometimes even have victors.
That is a metagame.


Right, but I don't see the connection with "zergs are invincible" (which btw they aren't... I've been in VS zergs that were torn apart by air at broken arch).

[Miffy]

All you have to do is pack out the servers again like launch and we'll have nicely balanced fights as conts will be full.

Problem is there are too many servers.

[LoliLoveFart]

A meta game would mean smaller sqauds could have an effect on the zerg instead of ghost capping or being chewed up by it.

If the zerg had to cap a key facility to cap a large base, smaller squads could flip that facility and force the zerg to retreat to cap it back, fuck even a lattice system would work wonders.

Just anything to break up the zerg rushes would be fantastic.

[blackweb]

I lead an outfit that has 678 members. We are anything but a zerg. We usually run 1-2 full platoons that are organized down to the squad level. This thread is just stereotyping every large outfit as a mindless zerg. That in itself is mindless.

[gunshooter]

I lead an outfit that has 678 members. We are anything but a zerg.

That IS a zerg. That you think you use Intense Military Tactics that you read off wikipedia doesn't change the fact.

People who choose to be just a faceless number amongst the zerg in games like don't do it because they're confident in their own ability.

[Ghoest9]

When Buzz, Hamma, Sardus got something to say about PS2 LISTEN. These are the last three who would ever hurt the game.


You should probably say - "intentionally."
Im not saying any of their particular idea are bad but what I have noticed here like many other games is that people at all levels of significance often believe that the game can be be improved by changes which end up making their exact issue worse when it plays out.

Like the Op in this thread suggesting that more back hacks will break up the zerg when it would actually feed the zerg.

[Sardus]

I don't buy the "lack of metagame" argument. I'm not even sure what it's actually supposed to mean.

Any game that has a somewhat realistic emulation of real life war will present the same characteristics as real life war.
In real life, large numbers are an advantage, vehicles win over infantry, and those who control the sky control everything.
In other words, the zerg wins, vehicle spam wins, and air is OP.

What you see in the game could just be the logical consequence of a pretty good modern war simulation.

Maybe it's possible to keep tanks and air and have a fun game by partitioning the continent into zones intended for infantry vs infantry (biolabs exist, but they have issues), infantry vs tanks, air vs tanks and air vs air.

I'll answer your post by borrowing from an e-mail someone sent me yesterday:

In Planetside 1 there were 4 ways to take a base:

1) By brute force. Crash the walls, take the courtyard. Press the interior until it broke

2) By Soft Underbelly. A back door rush. A generator drop. A max crash to the tubes.

3) By attrition of resource denial. A drain hack or just plain starve out the base of NTU's until it goes neutral.

4) By cutting off key benefits, by killing back linked generators, knocking out gate shields, etc.

In Planetside 2 there is only 1 way to take a base. The way design set it up. That's it. There really aren't several ways to skin that cat.


That's what I mean by metagame. Strategy. I'm not only talking about backhacking to throw off the zerg. I'm talking about multiple ways to take a base, which in planetside 1, were a lot harder to take. That gave the defenders and actual chance of fighting back, or at the very least, prolonging some sort of good softy battle.

Someone threw out the idea of a vehicle shield that blocks aircraft from shooting down into the courtyard (effectively making the fight more "indoors"). That's a good idea. We already have shields to keep tanks out, imagine a shield to keep aircraft out.

And then give the galaxy a special "drop" upgrade (similar to the sundy shield buster) that allows you to drop people through it.

[Sardus]

#3 was my favorite. A win win fun time for the defender + attacker. Hero
ant would even save the day for the defender. I loved being that ant. :lol:

I also loved stopping that ant with my AMS a ton of CE + OS waiting. :devilwink

Oh I loved doing some of those "just in time" last second ANT drops out of the back of a loadstar. Those were some epic moments.

[Ghoest9]

Your Dad intentionally came inside your Mom. Your Dad came inside your Mom.

I dunno sounds the same to me. Results still the same, you here.


That was either to clever for me to understand - or it was just dumb.
Either way try harder.

[TZTEN]

Someone threw out the idea of a vehicle shield that blocks aircraft from shooting down into the courtyard (effectively making the fight more "indoors"). That's a good idea. We already have shields to keep tanks out, imagine a shield to keep aircraft out.

And then give the galaxy a special "drop" upgrade (similar to the sundy shield buster) that allows you to drop people through it.

I like this idea and think that bases should be fortified to where they make the first contact battles infantry vs infantry. You can use a Sundy to get through the shield for re spawns inside. Then once inside you have to fight infantry to get the gens down vs just bombing the hell out of the base.

The thing around more posts about the game mechanics is not going to hurt the game. If they bother you then ignore them. If one person wants something changed is it going to change? If groups of people speak up and voice a constructed idea and share their idea then it will be heard and something will have to happen.

There is not just one fix for everything, but we have to try as a community and make a constructive reasoning for the changes. I know the DEVS are listening and will implement changes based on what the players want.

Thank you Sardus for taking time to make this post. Also thanks to Buzz and Hamma for theirs. All have great points and gives SOE an idea of what players think will make the game better.

[PoisonTaco]

Maybe we should bring back the ANT system? Bring back Auraxium as the resource for spawning vehicles. Not only do you need enough personal resources, but the outpost, tower or facility needs stored Auraxium. If it's completely drained terminals and generators power down.

[ringring]

Me too, but I recall in one dev broadcast Higby asked if they were going to bring Ant back and the reply from a different dev was that 'Ants aren't fun'.

And I recall flying an ant into a base and failing, then trying again and failing, then our entire squad went to bring more in - three gal+ant combo's with air support.

And to be honest I think we failed again.

Good times :)

[Sardus]

Two good ideas floating to the top of this discussion

1) An air shield with a generator in addition to the two vehicle shields to keep out the tanks

2) A forward spawn room for the defenders with a generator

The air shield will keep the bombers out, and the forward spawn at the other end of the base will make the base much harder to take but it can be taken down by the attackers.

[Ghoest9]

/em rolls eyes
Almost no one(especially anyone who zergs) is going to defend bases unless you make it rewarding for average and lesser players.

[ringring]

Two good ideas floating to the top of this discussion

1) An air shield with a generator in addition to the two vehicle shields to keep out the tanks

2) A forward spawn room for the defenders with a generator

The air shield will keep the bombers out, and the forward spawn at the other end of the base will make the base much harder to take but it can be taken down by the attackers.

These are quick fixes that aren't, I think we're playing about here in trying to adapt the unadaptable.

Bases will be better places to fight if there are internal spaces and choke points as has been requested many times and if you're recall the Bio Lab is oft cited as having the best infantry fighting.

As a further example I'd also point you to the current AMP Station. It has gate shields and no roof shield. Are aircraft a problem? No they're not. The shields+gen are a problem because as soon as they're taken down the fight is over.

[Hamma]

Great thread and totally agreed. We must all keep on this :)

[Graywolves]

I'm glad more and more people are trying to bring these issues to greater attention.


I would simplify my list to

1) Vehicle effectiveness (You're effectively a god if you pull one into an infantry zerg)
2) Base design (Everything is made to be taken easily right now)
3) Meta game (You're either butting heads at the front or taking empty bases)


Of course there's a ton of things to talk about. Just what I would focus on right now.

When you think about the Magrider vs other tanks and the response was to work on bringing other MBTs up to par with magrider it actually scares me. Both in how strong tanks are now and how that doesn't make sense with what makes it so powerful (other than the secondary AV laser). This gives me concern to other areas of the game in terms of balancing and polishing.

[thegreekboy]

Number one would be terrible. Yay, nor more libs, right? Wrong. Now defenders are not split one, nor two, nor 3 ways, but FOUR.

In amp stations at least, we needs battel to flow from gen to gen. Make the inner shields reliant on the taking of the vehicle shields, make the outer vehicle shields deny infantry as well, and get rid of the unshielded entrances. Also jump pads only the defenders can use and/or teleporters would be great to get defenders from place to place.

[coconut]

In Planetside 1 there were 4 ways to take a base [...]

That's what I mean by metagame. Strategy. I'm not only talking about backhacking to throw off the zerg. I'm talking about multiple ways to take a base, which in planetside 1, were a lot harder to take. That gave the defenders and actual chance of fighting back, or at the very least, prolonging some sort of good softy battle.


I would believe that giving attackers four options instead of one should make it harder to defend a base, not easier. I'm not against making the game richer, but perhaps this should be delayed until the balance between attack and defense in base fights reaches a sweet spot.

I like your other suggestions about making bases easier to defend. An anti-air shield is an interesting idea, but I haven't noticed that air was a problem in fights for amp stations. ESFs and libs typically are a "problem" (seen from a ground unit's perspective) at small outposts.

Others have suggested that jump pads in amp stations should work only for defenders, I think it's worth a try. Maybe they should be hackable and destroyable.

A daring idea would be to remove them altogether. Limiting people's ability to move fast around might give slower battles and more fighting over territory control. It could also help curb the whack-a-mole aspect of defense where you desperately run around stabilizing generators while other generators get overloaded.

[ringring]

I would believe that giving attackers four options instead of one should make it harder to defend a base, not easier. I'm not against making the game richer, but perhaps this should be delayed until the balance between attack and defense in base fights reaches a sweet spot.


A daring idea would be to remove them altogether. Limiting people's ability to move fast around might give slower battles and more fighting over territory control. It could also help curb the whack-a-mole aspect of defense where you desperately run around stabilizing generators while other generators get overloaded.

re: you first point; in ps1 the four options worked because the bases at the fundamental level were defendable.

The problem with the your send is that it removes the ability to move around quickly. I'm not a fan on the jump pads, I thought they were cheesy, however I don't think either restriting them nor removing with solve the problem at hand. All that would happen is that there is be more running.

The thing about the Amp Stations is that they are so big. I can understand some of the thinking behind it, namely one of the aims is to have many more people on the continent and therefore people need to be more spread out etc.

However, I wonder if a better way forward would have been to simply make this base smaller, not the same but following the same principles of PS1 bases but then simply have more of them and remove a few outposts if necessary.

[Stanis]

I'll answer your post by borrowing from an e-mail someone sent me yesterday:

In Planetside 1 there were 4 ways to take a base:

1) By brute force. Crash the walls, take the courtyard. Press the interior until it broke

2) By Soft Underbelly. A back door rush. A generator drop. A max crash to the tubes.

3) By attrition of resource denial. A drain hack or just plain starve out the base of NTU's until it goes neutral.

4) By cutting off key benefits, by killing back linked generators, knocking out gate shields, etc.

In Planetside 2 there is only 1 way to take a base. The way design set it up. That's it. There really aren't several ways to skin that cat.


That's what I mean by metagame. Strategy. I'm not only talking about backhacking to throw off the zerg. I'm talking about multiple ways to take a base, which in planetside 1, were a lot harder to take. That gave the defenders and actual chance of fighting back, or at the very least, prolonging some sort of good softy battle.

Someone threw out the idea of a vehicle shield that blocks aircraft from shooting down into the courtyard (effectively making the fight more "indoors"). That's a good idea. We already have shields to keep tanks out, imagine a shield to keep aircraft out.

And then give the galaxy a special "drop" upgrade (similar to the sundy shield buster) that allows you to drop people through it.

I agree with your points. But not the interpretation.
Your 4 methods are the tactics that proved successful for taking a base.

In PS1 there was only 1 way to take a base.
You hack the C&C. You then either wait 15 minutes or get the LLU to a nearby friendly base.

In PS2 there is only 1 way to take a base.
Win the ticket race.

The problem is that the tactics to achieve this are shallow.
There are multiple generators.
The area the defenders need to cover is huge.
The defenders have usually two spawn points in known locations.
The attackers are all over the place.
Air power is disproportionate.
There is no real advantage for defenders - even the walls become a liability.


Think of all those great last minute saves in PS1.
Done many of them in PS2 ?

This is what we need:

give the defenders an actual chance of fighting back, or at the very least, prolonging some sort of good softy battle.


While the softy battle prolongs we have more time, which leads to depth and viable tactics and strategic options.

[Stanis]

re: you first point; in ps1 the four options worked because the bases at the fundamental level were defendable.

The problem with the your send is that it removes the ability to move around quickly. I'm not a fan on the jump pads, I thought they were cheesy, however I don't think either restriting them nor removing with solve the problem at hand. All that would happen is that there is be more running.


Teleports and Jump pads.
Should go from spawn room or secure central locations to key perimeter locations. They should be defender only.
The teleporters from satellite bases into the main base at biolabs for the attackers are the biggest lump of cheese in the game.

They should be the defenders key advantage in having a secure spawn location and a huge area to defend.

How dangerous does the CY become just because you have to guard and protect the walls you've been able to just ignore knowing the enemy is HE camped at spawn room door and vehicle bay shield.
When we can now play shoot and scoot and take down vehicles and infantry in our own base - what a novel idea.
Very bad move by sony taking the teleporter out of the tech plants too.

[Kerrec]

Bit of background before I launch into this topic. I'm in my mid 30's and have been playing FPS's for a long time. I came to PS2 (never played PS1) after having played Battlefield for several years. I am not up to speed with all the lingo used so far in this thread, so I can't follow some of the details made in this thread, especially those referring to PS1. In any case, I hope that a "fresh" view will be welcome instead of dismissed due to my "noobiness". Ok, so I have a mid 20's TR and a mid teens NC and so far I play mostly solo and tag along with others when I cross their paths to accomplish some basic teamwork.

Issue #1: From my experience, I will try to fight a zerg UNTIL it spawn camps. At that point, I just leave and consider that base lost. Every single base has one massive choke point, and that is the spawn rooms. To me, that just seems like a HUGE DESIGN FLAW. In other words, the attackers can approach a base from any direction and have to focus their attention on one building. Defenders spawn from one building and have to focus their attention everywhere. Even if an entire platoon decides to spawn on a base to defend it, they have to funnel everyone out of that building thru 2 choke points. It is just too easy for the attacker to control. My proposed fix:

A) Make Spawn Buildings a square with an open courtyard (with shields to protect vs. air) and have multiple one-way jump pads that will launch players all over the base (including buildings at or near generators).

Issue #2: Base turrets are rediculously easy to beat/destroy and are generally weak as well. I understand that tank vs. tank shouldn't be one shot kills for fun's sake. However, the turrets can't manoeuver and are easy targets. Remember, turrets are stationary, and as far as I know, can't be upgraded to do more damage vs. aircraft/vehicles that CAN be upgraded to take less damage. My proposed fixes:

A) They should hit HARD. Make the tanks PAY dearly to peek around a corner to take that shot.

B) The Anti-Air turrets should be protected by the wall so that they can't be destroyed by tanks outside of the base. And they should also HIT HARD. Air vehicles should fear coming into their line of fire, until infantry or vehicles can get inside the base to take them out.

C) Introduce Mortars/Artillery located inside the base. The big problem with fixed emplacement turrets is that all tanks do is peek out, take a couple shots, take some damage, back up behind cover, repair and repeat until turret is dead. Turrets have NO chance, especially if several tanks are focusing on the turret. Engineers just can't keep up with the repairs. Hence the mortars. Purely a splash damage weapon for anti-infantry, it should have a parabolic trajectory so it can fire over cover. The way I envision it, the mortar would be inside the base and wouldn't be able to fire into the base or see outside of the base. The mortar operator would have to be in communication with the turret operator, who would "walk" the mortar on target verbally.

Issue #3: What's the point of repairing anti-armor shield generators once the zerg has moved inside the base? Would you really order a squad to brave the vehicle minefield to reach those destroyed generators so you can keep a couple more vehicles out when there's already a vehicle traffic jam happening inside? 2 things need to happen to fix this:

A) One way jump pads from the spawn building and/or main building to the vicinity of the generators.

B) Once the generators are repaired, they stop incomming traffic AND they power up some monster anti-armor guns that only have Line of Sight inside the base. One shot Armor Piercing (no splash damage) kills, very slow reload. IE: the longer the defenders can keep that generator UP, the more armor the zerg loses.

I'm all about taking BABY steps when trying to balance games. I'm not advocating EVERY suggestion I made, however implementing SOME of them will make bases at least somewhat defensible. At the very least, the spawn buildings need to be fixed, so 20 players can't lock down 2 choke points and prevent any form of infantry defense from the inside of the base.

Edit: Meant to include this...

Issue #4: Territory influence. (sorry for not knowing the lingo). I understand not being able to capture a base far behind enemy lines and gaining resources for that base. Make sense to me. HOWEVER, I don't understand why you can't NEUTRALIZE enemy bases far behind enemy lines, to deny resources to the enemy. I don't really see the point of the Galaxy when all you can do is fight at the front lines (where all the air power usually is).

[Kerrec]

Another issue I just remembered:

Issue #5: 3 continents, 3 factions. Everytime I've looked at the continent populations, one faction always vastly outnumbers the others such that each faction is zerging different continents.

I don't know what the reasoning was behind providing 3 continents, but I think it should be reduced to 2. That way zergs are going to HAVE to clash and null themselves out.

[ringring]

Another issue I just remembered:

Issue #5: 3 continents, 3 factions. Everytime I've looked at the continent populations, one faction always vastly outnumbers the others such that each faction is zerging different continents.

I don't know what the reasoning was behind providing 3 continents, but I think it should be reduced to 2. That way zergs are going to HAVE to clash and null themselves out.

The only rationale that is sensible is that 3 continents was all that they could complete within the launch timetable.

Apparently, because the continents are hand-crafted they take quite a while to create.

But, the answer is actually the opposite of your suggestion. Create more continents and add in a inter-continental strategic layer (of called by us the meta game).

And this is what the devs are going to do. Hopefully we'll hear some timescales in Smedley's state of the nation post in the few weeks.

[Kerrec]

But, the answer is actually the opposite of your suggestion. Create more continents and add in a inter-continental strategic layer (of called by us the meta game).

Well, I have to disagree. I've played MMO's, FPS's and Strat games for most of my adult life. In every single game, the large majority of the population always takes the easy route to farm whatever the game "grind" happens to be.

If you add more continents, then each faction will Zerg one continent each, and the rest will be relatively empty. Until one continent is owned by a faction, then they'll switch to another continent, which will most likely be one of the empty ones. Zergs will be even less likely to ever meet.

Want a fix? Have the bases give out a fixed quantity of XP. Divide that fixed quantity of XP by the number of players taking the base. For example: Say a base gives out 1000 xp. You bring a zerg of 200 players. Grats, you've just earned everyone a whole whopping 5 xp for taking that base. Same 1000 xp, but you bring 20 players and take it via tactics and good quality teamwork: You've earned 50 xp.

Of course, you'll have to re-adjust what capping a base will award for xp so that a reasonable quantity of players will earn approximately the same as they do now, but still penalize the zerg mentality.

And just for LOL's. You'll probably end up with a 3 way war (3 factions) PLUS outfit vs. outfit wars (long live friendly fire!) fighting for a bigger share of the xp.

Edit: Maybe add or multiply the fixed xp quantity based on the quantity of defenders. More defenderes = more xp to be had. Give players incentive to face each other!

[ringring]

Well, I have to disagree. I've played MMO's, FPS's and Strat games for most of my adult life. In every single game, the large majority of the population always takes the easy route to farm whatever the game "grind" happens to be.

If you add more continents, then each faction will Zerg one continent each, and the rest will be relatively empty. Until one continent is owned by a faction, then they'll switch to another continent, which will most likely be one of the empty ones. Zergs will be even less likely to ever meet.

Want a fix? Have the bases give out a fixed quantity of XP. Divide that fixed quantity of XP by the number of players taking the base. For example: Say a base gives out 1000 xp. You bring a zerg of 200 players. Grats, you've just earned everyone a whole whopping 5 xp for taking that base. Same 1000 xp, but you bring 20 players and take it via tactics and good quality teamwork: You've earned 50 xp.

Of course, you'll have to re-adjust what capping a base will award for xp so that a reasonable quantity of players will earn approximately the same as they do now, but still penalize the zerg mentality.

And just for LOL's. You'll probably end up with a 3 way war (3 factions) PLUS outfit vs. outfit wars (long live friendly fire!) fighting for a bigger share of the xp.

Edit: Maybe add or multiply the fixed xp quantity based on the quantity of defenders. More defenderes = more xp to be had. Give players incentive to face each other!
Yes, this is exactly what ps1 did. And in fact in PS1 you would often choose to attack based based on how confident you were that the enemy would defend it.

But, coming back to the number of continents. If you increase the number and add in the continental links that have been promised you actually create a stretegic meta-game above but integrated with the FPS game. You make the whole experience more interesting and you 'll stop the drigt away that is happening (hopefully).

On the other hand by decreasing the number of continents you're doing the opposite and removing strategic possibilities so that all we're left with is the FPS - and ther are already plenty FPS games out there.

All in all, I think the devs know about the issues and have plans to address them. I don't know how long it will take and I don't know whether my interest in PS2 (as it is now) can be sustained.

Bring on Smedley's January posting. :)

[thegreekboy]

My idea regarding vehicle shields

This was a part of my monster "fix Amp Stations" post that noone read but here it is:

Vehicle shields, at the start, should deny infantry AND vehicles. Once they are taken down, until they are repaired they allow infantry in but "blink" on and off (one blink is 5 seconds long and happens every 5 minutes) allowing vehicles in. This makes is difficult for infantry to get in and cuts down on courtyard armor zerging.

[EightEightEight]

I'd like to see the lattice system come back. I would also like to see a generator system for each of the bases controlling their benefits. That way we could have some Gen Holds. Those were so much fun back in PS1

[MorphiusX]

Xp based fix

Base population
76-100% = 10% of value 100
61-75% = 40% 400
51-60% = 60% 600
41-50% = 80% 800
0-40% = 100% of value 1000

1-5 = 10%
6-15 = 25%
16-30 = 40%
31-60 = 70%
61-100 = 90%
101+ =100%

Let me explain with some examples

My squad of 12 goes up against 20 enemy meaning we only have about 40% of pop we cap the base giving us 1000 XP (100%) there where a total 20 defenders at any given time during the battle only giving us 40% making it 400xp

Another example my platoon of 48 take on a small squad of 10 meaning we have about 80-85% pop making the value of the base only 100xp (10%) there where a total of just 10 defenders giving 25% making this cap only worth 25xp.

Another example is a huge battle 300vs300 giving 80% of XP (800) but with over 100 defenders the base is worth the full 800xp.

This promotes big battles. Removes the zerg trying to avoid each other for easy caps and promotes the underdogs slightly giving away to strategy instead of zerging.

Obviously these are just random figures but you get the idea. Zerg capping undefended or very little defended base = stuff all XP.

Bringing back XP for base defence will also encourage people to defend the base even at half the points for capping using a similar formula would be worth it.