View Full Version : Mobile Spawning Redesign.
Rothnang
2013-02-21, 03:19 AM
Sunderers can no longer be deployed inside or directly around enemy bases. The restriction on deploying multiple Sunderers next to each other is lifted however.
Spawn Beacons still exist, but are no longer a straight up respawn option, but just create an instant-action location for your squad members.
The new Light Armored Cars serve as the front-line spawn units, you can revive in an LAC if you died within 50 meters of it, so they can't simply be hidden away somewhere, you actually need a player inside who keeps pace with the infantry and fights alongside them. You only revive when you spawn on an LAC, you can't change your class in one.
LACs would have a special feature that stops them from instantly exploding after having been reduced to zero hitpoints, instead they would break down and turn into a burning wreck that doesn't take any further damage, and can be turned back into a functioning vehicle if it is repaired in time (Maybe 10 seconds). Occupants of the vehicle are forced outside when it becomes a wreck.
In order to kill an LAC/Infantry team you would have to take out both of them, not just one and watch the other fold. This encourages both the Infantry to stick with their vehicle, and the vehicle to stick with the infantry.
Galaxies become the squad spawning option, and members of the Galaxies squad can always spawn inside of the aircraft. This requires the Galaxy to actually fly to where the squad wants to be deployed. The old issue of Galaxies plopping themselves down in the middle of a base and becoming fortresses shouldn't be an issue if they can only spawn a squad of 12, since there won't be enough room in bases to land enough Galaxies for a whole army, and the 3+ Engineers it takes to actually keep a Galaxy alive on the ground are a much bigger deal if that Galaxy only spawns 12, not 120.
This would improve the game in several ways. One of the biggest reasons why defending bases is kind of pointless currently is because the attackers can run a Sunderer right into the base and then just have a spawn point right there. This doesn't leave the defenders any way to actually thin out the attackers before they get inside of the base, and shifts the focus of the game completely from assaulting a defensive position to simply two teams playing in a base like it's a level in a much smaller FPS.
Sunderers will still be useful with this change, since they will still be the reliable go-to spawn option that makes up the backbone of your army, and provides infantry terminals for class switching and resupplying, which LACs can't provide to you.
LACs operating right at the front line as an infantry support vehicles will create much closer cooperation between vehicles and infantry, since the LACs can't just be parked somewhere, they have to actively move with the infantry. The fact that you can repair them for a short time after they have been destroyed makes them relatively easy to take down if they don't have infantry support close by, since they likely won't have a lot of armor, but makes them harder to destroy than other vehicles if they have a lot of infantry backing them up that - meaning you can't easily take them out by doing a suicide run with C4, if there are still some engineers nearby they can just fix the LAC up. It's a real infantry support vehicle that is strong when it works with infantry, and garbage without infantry.
Spawn Beacons will be a lot less powerful, but that's because drop pods are simply too strong at the moment. Spawn beacons themselves are also a very annoying element of the game, since they tend to always be deployed in difficult to reach places. Drop Pods are not only a very powerful offensive weapon that can potentially kill even the most heavily armored vehicles, but also allow you to have a constant stream of people get airdropped onto a base without actually needing to fly any aircraft over it.
That role should fall to the Galaxy, and with Galaxy squad spawning they will take the niche that spawn beacon currently fills in a lot more elegant way.
Mordelicius
2013-02-21, 03:59 AM
As I've replied in the latest Buzzcutpsycho thread:
They can install Spawn Jamming Sunderers instead. Defenders can deploy these Sunderers (with smaller radius of effect compared to the Spawn Sunderer). Any enemy attacker sunderer within the radius cannot spawn units.
The attacker then have to hunt down and destroy these spawn jamming sunderers. Rather than make it an automatic no-spawn zone, it's better to make it a dynamic fight between the attack/defender.
Since the radius effect of the Spawn Jamming Sunderer is smaller, then they have to be close by. The defenders will then have to defend these sunderers too. The defenders can deploy them inside walled compounds, creating the initial no spawn barriers around the base. They can even deploy these next to the capture point in smaller bases/outposts
The point being, it's up to the defenders to actively put up a no-deploy zone since they will require defending too. In return this will increase the number of objectives of the attacker creating an even deeper combat meta.
BlaxicanX
2013-02-21, 04:25 AM
I don't see Spawn-jamming sunderers being viable. In the current metagame, the attackers almost ALWAYS have armor superiority over the defenders. Out in the open, armor vs armor is common, but if the attackers have managed to get to a base, that usually means that they've already cleared out all the defender's armor. Thus, a jamming sundy wouldn't last long.
Restricting sunderer's to spawning only outside of bases would lengthen the supply line to get to the base by too much; which is something you see quite commonly even now: if a sunderer is parked outside of a base, the reinforcement line turns into a trickling assembly line of death that the defenders can pick off one at a time.
I don't really see anything wrong with sunderer spawns as they are now. I've never had trouble defending a base because of there being too many infantry enemies, personally.
Rothnang
2013-02-21, 05:52 AM
Spawn Jamming doesn't really seem viable to me. Bases need to be much more difficult to completely wreck and incapacitate before the defenders even get there. Currently by the time you get to a base that's under attack most of the time all the generators are already down, the terminals are destroyed or hacked, the vehicle bay full of enemy Sunderers and often the SCU is already down.
Simply adding a standoff zone for Sunderer deployment and giving more atractive options for respawning people at the front lines is simply better.
I mean let's not forget that there are MEDICS in this game. Even if they changed nothing else I'd claim that you can fight just fine at the front line with solid teamwork. Sunderers are a crutch right now, they take away from the scale this game should have by pushing two infinite spawnpoints often within less than 100 meters of each other.
Realmofdarkness
2013-02-21, 06:27 AM
just make the spawn timer increased based on how far it is deployed from nearest friendly territory. then you have the option to spawn right away in nearest base or wait a pretty long time if you want to spawn inside enemy base
Rothnang
2013-02-21, 06:37 AM
just make the spawn timer increased based on how far it is deployed from nearest friendly territory. then you have the option to spawn right away in nearest base or wait a pretty long time if you want to spawn inside enemy base
That would also be a possibility, but it'd still need some other frontline-spawning options so the pace of the game doesn't slow down too dramatically for infantry.
almalino
2013-02-21, 06:55 AM
Rothnang
Was it your suggestion or is it already confirmed as a future change to PS2? I do not get it though sounds interesting if implemented.
Rothnang
2013-02-21, 07:02 AM
It's just my personal idea for a redesign, nothing official.
I dont know gentlemen this seems like a far stretched idea to slow the spawning rate of attackers. I mean as of right now, most bases aren't even worth defending, infact we dont defend unless its a tech plant or they are cutting progress off from the warp gate. Other than that we let most bases flip, then take them back (Yes I am a XP/cert hore). But as it stands now, when Sundy's come close to the base we can usually spot them, and unless they come with some heavy armor and alot of ground troops we can take them out pretty quickly. If the zerg shows up then yea there is no getting to there spawn point. But most smaller groups we can usually take out there sundy and defend if we have to. I like the Idea though but as of right now in the game I cant see a reason to change the current spawn ability of attackers. I do like the spawn ability in the gal though, wish they would bring it back, but its likely not going to happen. I mean maybe they can bring it back, but you have to take off extra armor for it to work, this way defenders have a chance to take it out.
Rothnang
2013-02-21, 07:44 AM
Of course you can kill Sunderers to stop an attack, but they still have a very specific effect on almost every single battle, namely charging across the large open areas that are supposed to be part of the battle in the game, deploying somewhere in the base, and then it's just a big dumb zerg off to see what happens first, someone successfully suicide mines the Sunderer, or the base gets flipped.
Think of the epic battles that happen when you actually have Sunderers deployed away from the bases. Huge infantry charges at defended strongpoints, a deadly back and forth, people trying to push into a base, attackers trying to push out. No spawning right next to the cap point, no killing the sunderer by running at it with mines over and over until you get lucky. It's a real war when there is a bit of land between the belligerents, and that's a lot more fun.
That usually only happens when the base is so full of people before the attack starts that the attackers can't get a Sunderer inside the base and set up and a large enough group of people spawned into the base to make dealing with the Sunderer impossible without a lucky suicide run. The attackers find themselves forced to put the Sunderer outside the base behind a rock somewhere, and leg it the last 100 meters - and that makes all the difference.
psijaka
2013-02-21, 08:39 AM
As I've replied in the latest Buzzcutpsycho thread:
They can install Spawn Jamming Sunderers instead. Defenders can deploy these Sunderers (with smaller radius of effect compared to the Spawn Sunderer). Any enemy attacker sunderer within the radius cannot spawn units.
The attacker then have to hunt down and destroy these spawn jamming sunderers. Rather than make it an automatic no-spawn zone, it's better to make it a dynamic fight between the attack/defender.
Since the radius effect of the Spawn Jamming Sunderer is smaller, then they have to be close by. The defenders will then have to defend these sunderers too. The defenders can deploy them inside walled compounds, creating the initial no spawn barriers around the base. They can even deploy these next to the capture point in smaller bases/outposts
The point being, it's up to the defenders to actively put up a no-deploy zone since they will require defending too. In return this will increase the number of objectives of the attacker creating an even deeper combat meta.
^ This is a much better idea than the OP's.
I really don't like the idea of creating arbitrary static no deploy zones; a very clumsy mechanic. Much better to use intelligent placement of obstacles, spawn rooms etc to make deployment difficult, impossible or even downright suicide (overlooked by spawn room, for example).
Creating a spawn jammer Sunderer would actually give a reason for a Sunderer to be something other than an AMS, and create all kinds of interesting scenarios.
Back to the OP:
Spawn beacons are just fine; I find beacons on top of a mast or tree annoying as well, but this is no reason to do away with them; if they bug me that much, time to break out LA and deal with it. Or camp the spawners!
The new vehicle idea is interesting, but there is no way that a an arbitrary new mechanic should be introduced to allow the vehicle to be resurrected; once it is destroyed, that should be it. By what logic can a destroyed vehicle be bought back to life? I know that the game is all fantasy, but SoE at least make some attempt to keep things plausible.
Edit - I do like the idea of Galaxies becoming squad spawns; needs to be something more than a flying bus.
Edit2 - Could not the new vehicle just act as a Squad spawn? And allow class changes/resupplies etc to squad members? A mini squad Sunderer, in other words. Would be easier to implement.
Edit3 - what is the spawn timer on the current spawn beacon, default and fully certed? Would be interested to know.
Rothnang
2013-02-21, 02:04 PM
If there is such a thing as a spawn jammer, why wouldn't it be installed in bases instead of only on certain vehicles? Now THAT is arbitrary.
By what logic can a killed soldier be brough back to life? It serves as a useful gameplay mechanic, that's the logic. The best way to make an infantry support vehicle that actually forms a symbiotic relationship with infantry is to give it some feature that lets it survive otherwise lethal damage as long as it has infantry near it. An LAC shouldn't be able to tank a significant amount of damage by itself, it shouldn't just be another Sunderer that inexplicably has way heavier armor than a tank. Giving it the 10 seconds repair window fills all the criteria, it doesn't make the vehicle absurdly well armored for what it is, and it creates a symbiotic relationship between vehicle and infantry that fights alongside it.
Also, spawn beacons aren't fine. Drop pods shouldn't be raining on your base nonstop during an assault, it completely breaks the point of defensive structures if enemies don't have to come into your base through the doors and over the walls but simply appear on the roof. It's a no risk all reward mechanic.
Mordelicius
2013-02-23, 05:05 AM
It's a matter of counters. Simply assigning an ironclad no-deploy zone limits alot of the gameplay and increase predictability.
Air units will simply feast on sunderers scattered outside the base while bombing the hapless foot units trying to get to the choke points. While the ground defenders just blast them as they come into view. It will be repetitive with no variety.
They could add:
Spawn Jamming Sunderer - I'll give some examples of uses:
- Annoyed at the sunderer behind a huge rock that can't be killed? Park a jammer on the opposite side with support rush.
- Sunderer on top of the bridge? Put one under.
- Sunderer below a bridge? Put one on top.
- Sunderer outside the wall? Deploy one on the other side.
- Sunderer inside Ampstation A building? Deploy one outside the building and choke them out.
- In every occasion, there in an active struggle of getting a spot or taking away a spot. It's combat meta gameplay. The jammed sunderer would be pressured to attack the jamming sunderer.
- In addition, it will also increase the logistics of the attacker. Meaning, deploying more than one sunderer is now useful.
and/or (meet your idea halfway and introduce counters)
Spawn Jamming Generator - Operates much like shield generators or scu generator. It would be native to the base. Place it far away from the spawn room so both attacker and defenders will have equal access
If the Spawn Jamming generator is on, Sunderers cannot spawn within a certain radius around a control node. Attackers can destroy this generator like any other. And defenders can repair/stabilize it as usual.
I dont see what is wrong with the current s-ams spawn system. It just works fine.
But i also see problems regarding the spawn beacons. Skilled up it is OP. I am also no big fan of the deploy function.
First and foremost, the bad base design is major part of the problem not the spawn mechanics.
Rothnang
2013-02-23, 04:37 PM
It's a matter of counters. Simply assigning an ironclad no-deploy zone limits alot of the gameplay and increase predictability.
Air units will simply feast on sunderers scattered outside the base while bombing the hapless foot units trying to get to the choke points. While the ground defenders just blast them as they come into view. It will be repetitive with no variety.
The status quo should favor the defenders, and it should be up to the attackers to find a way to break their predictability. That's where tactics come in.
If you can't just rush Sunderers into the enemy base, hide spawn beacons on their roof, and instant action right on top of their capture point you might have to actually use some strategy instead of what we currently have, where most battles just boil down to a giant shit against the wall infantry battle where both sides just rush in until one or the other folds.
Just because a system punishes people for mindlessly charging in and expecting a respawn right back in the action as a reward doesn't mean it maks the game predictable. Quite the opposite, it punsihes people for acting predictably, it rewards people for figuring out a way to surprise their enemy.
Jamming Sunderers would create problems precisely because you can move them anywhere you want. It no longer gives the opponent a place where they are guaranteed a deploy. It also would make Sunderers their own best counter, which wouldn't make the game any better. The Sunderer is already the most overpowered vehicle in the entire game, it just gets a free pass because it's overpowered in a way that helps infantry instead of killing it.
Figment
2013-02-23, 09:10 PM
The attacker's spawns aren't the issue. At all.
The issue is with how hard it is to get to the CC to defend it.
The list of problems as is:
- CC cannot be reached via an infantry only fight.
- The CC is easily cut off from the spawns by getting some tanks and Liberators in the area, let alone 15-40, which regularly happens.
- The attackers outnumber the defenders not just in manpower, but in strong equipment by far. The power distance is huge.
- The CC is usualy located on the other side of a courtyard, as if the outpost is designed for one dimensional combat.
- Frequently base layouts favour defense in a particular direction, while enemies ignore all these attack vectors and make use of their 360 degrees approach options. Ignoring all defender positions. In part due to the open design. In part because mines are not usable for minefields.
- You don't have, nor can create enough time to kill or dismiss all these heavy units to reach your objective, let alone hold it.
- Most bases aren't on natural high ground.
- CC is 50% or more of the time located in the open, or, in a room that is so small and open to outside fire, it might as well be outside. These areas are super-sensitive to HE fire. And who is the only party in a base fight with no shortage of one hit kill HE? The attackers.
- Zergfits have adapted to the new spawn building design by randomly spamming the roof area from a safe distance (rocking the tank back and forth avoids most missile fire). This has the highest chance of HE kills, but more importantly, it prevents good aim from the defenders, who get constant screen shake and next to no chance to make use of reload time (defender reload is fastly longer than the tank's refire rate).
- Defenders only have acces to infantry and MAXes during any defense. Their opponents therefore have more firepower, need less diverse weaponry and have more endurance.
- Walls at outposts are designed to favour attackers: they have lots of holes in them, often right next to the capture point, they can't be manned as they have no walkways. Often enough funnel defenders while providing cover for attackers and their AMSes.
- Small spawnbuildings remain utter deathtraps.
- The map is zoomed out too much for CQC.
- When a spawnbuilding of the outpost at a base is captured, it is so far away and takes so little time, reinforcements of the defending party can't arrive in time. The same often goes for defense in high influence areas. Clearing a path and the actual walking to the CC takes too long, is too ardeous a journey, only provides you time for one spawn and requires a straight path to it to have a chance of stopping it before it is taken.
- There is no SOI to stop hot droppers: in fact, deploy puts you in a position you should need a Galaxy for: on top of the central keep, behind the enemy defenses.
There are a lot of known and obvious solutions here. But the AMS spawn locations have next to nothing to do with it. The CC must be harder to reach. But that includes harder to reach by vehicles of all kinds. And that is easier to do with pure infantry zones: no tanks, no air.
Rothnang
2013-02-24, 04:04 AM
I would argue that a lot of the points you make serve directly to deter Sunderers from entering a base, and as a result make it far more defensible. For example, the crown which is considered to be one of the most defensible locations in the whole game is primarily considered to be that defensible because the closest you can get a Sunderer to it is still easily 150 meters down the mountain.
Figment
2013-02-24, 06:01 AM
No that isn't why it is so defensible compared to others.
Extreme high ground to overcome, chokepoints that block all traffic, tight corners along two viable approaches, too steep inclines and no cover on the third approach, while two zergs fighting over a base held by a third zerg and stopping one another from approaching. Air is too busy dodging the AA from two zergs to make a fist as well.
That results in nothing getting close, not infantry, not tanks, not Sunderers. And since you need to capture and hold three points and there is no SCU to destroy, Galaxy air attacks are pointless too. Meanwhile, defenders have the most compact base type around, often times with tanks at their disposal.
These are also the same reasons why you cannot expand from the Crown, because the two zergs trap you.
You need to do more and broader analysis. It isn't a single factor you can magically change to get the Crown. All other bases can be completely surrounded and invaded by tanks within mere seconds, they don't fight off two zergs at once and they don't face natural and man made defenses on any level and defenders can't get out of the spawns the moment this happens. That is the issue.
Rothnang
2013-02-24, 05:27 PM
I never said it was the only factor that made the crown highly defensible, but it is a factor.
The spawn system right now obliterates any notion of front lines in bases that aren't like the crown, which renders walls etc. purely decorative. It makes dying as infantry pretty much have no consequences at all which leads to a game where it's impossible to beat a larger force even if you're supposed to have a terrain advantage. It turns the entire game into a constant round of "hunt the spawn option" where the only thing you can really do to affect an infantry battle is take out their spawns...
The giant issue with this is that it's never popular to take away something convenient, but if something is too convenient it dumbs down the game by a massive amount, which is exactly what's happening here. Infantry transport, medics, airdrops, working with vehicles as close in support... None of that matters because dying doesn't matter.
I would much rather see badass commandos who are tough to take down despite the fact that they are infantry, but if you do kill them it actually sets them back than this constant stream of cannon fodder that gets killed over and over and over without showing any fatigue. At the same time, are infantry players really happy with the situation we have? Obviously they aren't. They keep complaining about getting killed too easily by vehicles, but how can anything else be justified if there is no consequence to dying?
Figment
2013-02-24, 06:18 PM
The walls are decorative because they don't have wallwalks nor gated areas.
They might as well not be there, if they are there at all. The ams is easy to get in, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't get in, it should be harder to approach and get in.
Different area of solutions.
Rothnang
2013-02-24, 07:30 PM
Well, I never suggested that an AMS can't get in, just that a Sunderer with unlimited spawns/resupplies can't get in.
My suggestion very clearly states that front line spawning is still a thing, it's just more contingent on highly mobile vehicles that actually fight alongside you and that aren't such a huge binary liability, where their presence either completely rapes a base or a single engineer gets lucky and blows it up.
Figment
2013-02-24, 07:47 PM
But even then you wouldn't address the main issue: tanks, ESF and Libs camping the cc en massa and often with minimal crew needs. The sheer overkill of firepower and endurance is the problem. Blowing up a single ams in the area is not. That is piss easy if you would get a chance to move out of the spawns.
What annoyed me greatly is you have this decent roofing and merlons and then you meet GOON and BRTD, who took it on themselves to use the lamest strategies ever in vehicle camping: mass barrage from great distance. Aiming for targets isn't even part of it anymore, they just line up 30 tanks and spam the building. There is no way you can cross even 5m in the open, yet you are tasked with getting through 100-200m of spam at times.
Ever fought at Splitpeak? You don't honestly think the problem is the defenders have to cross over two bridges and a lot of open terrain to hold four points on the far side of a ravine and two gates perpendicular to that and the airspace and the terrain behind them?
I don't fricking care what you do to the ams, it isn't going to change a damn thing aside from making their defensive use worse. Because I havn't even started on what it means for non-attacking party! :/
Rothnang
2013-02-24, 09:14 PM
AMSes everywhere are not the answer to infantries woes, they are a large part of the cause.
You will never get to a point where infantry can be expected not to get killed by vehicles easily as long as they can come back to the fight with little to no effort.
Personally I have no interest in cannon fodder infantry being a huge force in this game. I want to see more durable infantry as much as the next guy, I just don't think it would be fair at this stage to give any more buffs to infantry without addressing the elephant in the room which is unlimited availability.
There are three different systems restricting vehicle deployment. There are spawn timers, there are resources and there is the limited availability of consoles you can pull them from. There is nothing you can do to circumvent that. Infantry isn't subject to resource cost and it isn't subject to serious spawn timers. The only thing infantry is subject to is availability of spawn points, and currently there are a dozen ways in the game to completely circumvent that too by just making your own.
The reality simply is, AMS and spawn beacons are still way too convenient for infantries own good. It's widely accepted in the meanwhile that Galaxy AMS was a bad system in beta, and that the game got better after it was removed, but during beta the debate we're having was much the same. Most people were pissed at the idea of removing their Galaxy AMS. Once it was gone and they had adapted to the new reality of the game just about everyone agreed it was better.
It's the same with Sunderer AMS and spawn beacons now. For a lot of people it's inconceivable to fight without the huge convenience constant respawning right in the contested area provides. If it was toned down a bit though and wasn't such an overwhelming alpha strategy we would start seeing people try different stuff, adapt to the new situation.
Maybe you'd stop seeing facilities being camped by simply sitting inside with 200 people murdering everything that comes through the doors if those 200 people couldn't expect to just shrug and laugh when 10 of them get fragged by a grenade every 30 seconds. Maybe a squad of really good players could actually make a dent in a defense like that if killing someone bought you a little more than only around 30 seconds before the same person is shooting you again.
Don't just think purely of the vehicles that kill infantry, also keep in mind that your own actions as infantry become irrelevant if killing people makes very little difference. You may not suffer much if you die, but that also means you don't achieve much when you kill. More consequences means fewer stalemates, and meaningful rewards for brilliant strategies, instead of waging a futile war on an undying opponent.
Most people don't realize this, but when you play infantry you are farming infantry just as much as some HE lightning. The only difference is that the guys you farm are also farming you at the same time.
BlaxicanX
2013-02-24, 09:46 PM
I'm still not seeing how unlimited is an actual problem. It takes 10 seconds to blow up an AMS, and because of the AMS distance restrictions, blowing up just one will fuck an entire organized push into a base due to the severely lengthened supply lines.
In the 3 days of play I've accumulated, I've never, as a defender, been overwhelmed by infantry except for in Biolabs. It's always been the massive zerg of a dozen+ tanks and fighters that ave fucked us while defending.
I'd really like to see the hard evidence that points to "infantry spam" being an actual problem in the game, rather than a personal grievance.
Rothnang
2013-02-24, 10:10 PM
Again, don't misunderstand my idea, none of it is aimed at taking away the ability infantry has to respawn much more rapidly than vehicles, it just aims at two things: creating a clearer front line so that strategy can overcome raw numbers more readily, and laying the groundwork for new relationships between vehicles and infantry where people don't look at them as two separate entities that must do battle for all eternity, but as piece of the same military machine.
If you find yourself overwhelmed by a zerg army don't mistake the fact that they have a lot of vehicles for meaning vehicles are what makes zerging so effective. The reason why you don't get steamrolled by a superior infantry force anywhere but in Biolabs isn't because vehicles do it better, but because people like using vehicles and vehicles tend to accumulate once you get a big zerg rolling that doesn't take a lot of losses.
Also the defenders rarely ever have good vehicle support currently, because even if your base can spawn vehicles, if your attackers have a aircraft etc. already in the area the chance of even getting your vehicle somewhere where its useful before it gets destroyed is very low. Also a lot of people try to defend will instant action into a place, so they arrive as infantry and don't bring any heavy armor to the table. Once again, not really a consequence of vehicles, but just of the way that base defenses work in this game. You just can't mobilize a large tank column in time to save a base, you'll see your faction with the vehicle advantage when they retake the base 30 minutes later while the enemy sit inside as infantry and curse at the sky.
psijaka
2013-02-25, 09:08 AM
If there is such a thing as a spawn jammer, why wouldn't it be installed in bases instead of only on certain vehicles? Now THAT is arbitrary.
By what logic can a killed soldier be brough back to life? It serves as a useful gameplay mechanic, that's the logic. The best way to make an infantry support vehicle that actually forms a symbiotic relationship with infantry is to give it some feature that lets it survive otherwise lethal damage as long as it has infantry near it. An LAC shouldn't be able to tank a significant amount of damage by itself, it shouldn't just be another Sunderer that inexplicably has way heavier armor than a tank. Giving it the 10 seconds repair window fills all the criteria, it doesn't make the vehicle absurdly well armored for what it is, and it creates a symbiotic relationship between vehicle and infantry that fights alongside it.
Also, spawn beacons aren't fine. Drop pods shouldn't be raining on your base nonstop during an assault, it completely breaks the point of defensive structures if enemies don't have to come into your base through the doors and over the walls but simply appear on the roof. It's a no risk all reward mechanic.
I'm not the one making the case for a spawn jammer in the first place. Pretty happy with AMSs as they are, TBH. Placing one inside a base is a high risk strategy; easier for the defenders to get at than one 100+m away.
Not a good comparison. Respawning is an essential mechanic used consistently within the game, used by every shooter with a very few exceptions (COD search and destroy). Introducing a vehicle that can magically be reconstructed from a burning wreck when others can't is totally arbitrary. Just give the vehicle more HP instead.
I'm sure that the majority of drop pods "raining in nonstop" are deployed through instant action, largely by randoms, not because of a spawn beacon. Spawn beacons are fine, and are integral to squad play.
Figment
2013-02-25, 09:10 AM
Regarding spawn beacons and drop pods. We need SOIs. But we don't need to stop AMSes since they don't ignore terrain.
Rothnang
2013-02-25, 06:07 PM
Right, we don't need to get rid of AMS vehicles, but giving them more variety will help.
The problem with the Sunderer is that it does what it does to such an extreme degree that it has become an absolute alpha strategy. It's the first thing everyone goes to. Even Galaxy attacks usually start with "Hack vehicle terminal, make Sunderer" No other unit in the game can make a claim of being anywhere near as essential.
What about medics, what about transport vehicles, what about the new LACs? What is their point when respawning right into the action is always the quicker, easier option?
Figment
2013-02-25, 08:18 PM
Rothnang, if we didn't all have access to it, that would be far more effective.
PS1 had maybe 30% of the players with an AMS available. The number was further reduced due to their being 133-150 total, so on the entire continent, there would be what, 3-7 at max in most scenario's?
How many do we have in PS2, with its 666 players per side? 1-12 per region? Limit the availability to specialist group members, who give up some other ability like tanks (and the other way around), and you start creating more numerical balanced variety and dependency.
Rothnang
2013-02-26, 04:06 AM
The argument "X would be balanced if not everyone had it" really doesn't work IMO. How would you restrict it? Make it one of multiple mutually exclusive options? What would the other ones be to be as powerful and desirable as a Sunderer?
Figment
2013-02-26, 04:54 AM
As powerful?
It isn't about power, it is about composing a character that fits your playstyle and making long term choices in its growth that don't stack endlessly.
Current PS2 context doesn't allow this sort of trade-off, but in PS1, all certs competed with one another and your prefered cert combi priorities would simply exclude extra's like an AMS or something else.
Personally, I still have tiny hopes the devs change it to where the current PS2 cert points become research points and there is a layer of BR tied limited cert points on top. The BR tied points would restrict you from having unlimited access. So you could be making a choice for say 15 certpoints out of 100 to spend on an AMS, or get AV and the Light Assault suit instead at 5 and 7 points each and unlock specialties within a suit at one or two points. (Random cost to illustrate how quickly you would be forced to make choices; not everyone would want to afford an AMS but leave it to others in exchange for a weapon, suit, tool or other vehicle or multiple things at once).
This is how PS1 worked, with 26 points to spend and cost between 1 and 5 points (next to stand alone certs, often in prerequesite trees 3+2, or 2+(3 and/or 3 and/or 3), etc. Only you didn't have to grind to research the options to select.
(The research should IMO be shared by all your account's characters, while different characters of yours would have different setups and different playstyles). It would be a lot more fun to play with a handicap forcing you to be creative than to have everything and default to heaviest firepower gameplay. It would make it more fresh if you had characters to switch to with and without a medic, MAX or infil suit for instance.
Rothnang
2013-02-26, 05:07 AM
It would be nice if there was a perk tree of some sorts that people could advance along, but they would have limited points. Top end perks could be used to gate certain particularly powerful vehicles and equipment to give it an element of rarity in the game that currently nothing really has.
However, that's neither here nor there. My big concern is still:
What's the fecking point to LACs and Galaxies as long as you can just Clowncar the shit out of any base?
Figment
2013-02-26, 06:51 AM
The problem with Galaxies is that there are no single wave objective to resecure. A Galaxies role is to dump players in a single wave on a single insertion point.
Considering the quick respawn rates and long time hold requirements, this is virtually useless. Especially since high up insertion points can just as easily if not more easily be reached with LA and Spawn Beacons.
That has more to do with the capture system and base design though than with AMSes, though obviously AMSes spawn LA's. The Gal transport role is worsened because you can just use ESFs with LA pilot as alternative. Worse, because Gals are a pretty big and slow target, they are easy ESF and Liberator prey thanks to the widely used, rather large rocket spam clips and extremely strong gunship gun.
If bases were too tall/high for jetpackers to scale and there was a ban on dropping with pods on bases, such buildings would make for attractive Galaxy drop targets. But only if you didn't need consistent troop insertions, but could for instance disable the spawns in one strike.
Short TTK doesn't help small insertion groups either, since they can't revive/respawn as decently as the local defender of say a Bio Dome.
But yeah, the Galaxy IMO primarily suffers from capture point mechanics, base design and extremely uneven competition with other high altitude insertion methods. The AMS isn't the problem: Galaxies were used regularly in PS1 and the relationship between AMS and Gal design hasn't really changed. New however, are lack of SOI, wide openly accessible and relatively low (due to jetpack) base layouts and of course the capture system being a tug-of-war instead of hack and hold - instant resecure.
Rothnang
2013-02-26, 08:18 AM
All valid points, but it's the disposable nature of infantry that makes 11 guys airdropping into a base pointless. Even if they kill 30 enemies before they all die, it just makes no difference.
You simply cannot win a battle without depriving the enemy of spawn capabilities currently, which is exactly why suicide bombing sunderers and camping spawnrooms are such popular strategies.
Figment
2013-02-26, 08:39 AM
Which is why I've been fighting for very specific, all-encompassing base design changes.
Rothnang
2013-02-26, 09:21 AM
I don't see how the base design is going to make a big difference there. It's more an issue with the game not having any kind of logistics system. Spawning shouldn't be free IMO. It shouldn't necessarily cost you resources, but there should be a significant benefit to significantly outkilling your enemy, which right now, there simply isn't because the people you kill are right back 30 seconds later. Unless you can outkill them so much that they never even get to leave the spawn room you aren't accomplishing anything by killing them.
I think an offensive needs to have a real chance of running out of steam before accomplishing its objective, and a defense needs to be able to be broken by laying siege to the base for a long period of time. Running supplies to the troops to keep them fighting should be a big part of the game, because it would allow vehicles to have a role where their mobility is a benefit, where operating across a large expanse of terrain is genuinely helpful to a battle that the infantry is waging inside a confined base.
Figment
2013-02-26, 09:32 AM
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/outpost-spawn-design-based-on-existing-building.65475/
Suggest you skim through this thread (particularly post 13 and 14 on base design principles and posts 123, 213, 229) to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
SOE already picked up on the little defensive structure suggestions with regards to the new spawnrooms. The overall base design philosophy however hasn't changed.
Dkamanus
2013-02-26, 10:27 AM
All valid points, but it's the disposable nature of infantry that makes 11 guys airdropping into a base pointless. Even if they kill 30 enemies before they all die, it just makes no difference.
You simply cannot win a battle without depriving the enemy of spawn capabilities currently, which is exactly why suicide bombing sunderers and camping spawnrooms are such popular strategies.
I disagree.
Having people drop at the right time at the right place in a base is something VERY worthwhile. AMP Stations and Tech Plants have such moments and places, and can turn the tide of battles. Been there, do that. And I believe many people have done the same.
Even if those 12 guys aren't depriving any infantry spawning capability (which depends on what we are talking also), they are actually hitting targets while the main force is occupied with the defending force. These spec-ops teams are essential.
Rothnang
2013-02-26, 10:41 AM
Right place and time is a pretty vague standard for effectiveness though. Coordinating an effort with 12 people and expensive equipment should not be a hit and miss affair, where every time it goes horribly wrong you say "Well, I guess it wasn't the right place and time". I mean what are the chances of getting it right? Sure, there are times when a Galaxy drop can break a stalemate, but even then you have to ask if it was only a stalemate in the first place because 12 guys were flying around in a Galaxy instead of doing the clowncar shuffle.
Khorneholio
2013-02-26, 01:37 PM
The best change they could make to the mobile spawn system is to add a "respawn nanofuel tank" that works as follows:
-The tank would represent the number of respawn "tickets" that AMS unit has available
-The tank could be refueled at friendly ammo towers.
-Players could cert into either higher capacity nanofuel tanks or faster refilling tanks.
-A control panel could be placed in outposts which enemies could overload in order to shut down the ammo tower at that outpost. The tower would take X minutes to "reboot" once repaired.
This would improve the game in that it would:
-inject an element of logistics, reminiscent of ANT runs, into the game; an element that's currently lacking.
-give smaller units a tactical objective (ammo towers/pads) they could attack in order to limit the zerg's momentum.
There's also the possibility that limiting the number of spawns an AMS can provide before refueling might allow for the return of the Galaxy AMS in a more balanced manner, if that ticket number were kept low enough.
I also REALLY like the idea of "Spawn interdiction field" Sundys. However, I think this would really shine as a new Galaxy role: So long as a properly equipped galaxy is loitering overhead, enemy Sundy's are incapable of spawning troops.
Figment
2013-02-26, 03:43 PM
Before we continue on nerf the AMS and call it a clowncar, I'd like to hear an argument - preferably supported by footage, to see where the AMS problem originates, since I hardly even get to fight infantry due to constantly facing tanks.
So if I don't get out there to kill infantry due to vehicle spam, I don't see how the AMS can even be considered a problem or how it'd solve anything to nerf it.
Come on. If it's such a big issue, show some footage.
Rothnang
2013-02-26, 07:29 PM
I don't know what server you're on where infantry isn't relevant and AMS isn't the king of the battlefield. I play on Mattherson and we just don't really have the whole "vehicle spam" problem that people talk about.
Sure, sometimes an enemy brings in a huge tank force and for the moment they wreak a lot of havoc, but it's usually infanty that eventually wears them down. C4, tankmines, concentrated rocket fire from heavies as well as engineers now. When I play I observe something entirely different than you seem to. Vehicles can't even get close to a base that has a significant amount of infantry in it, because all the easy access points are mined and there are loads of heavies and engineers on the roofs... the only way they can clear that base out is by sending in infantry of their own.
What do you want to see footage of? An AMS creating craploads of infantry that go fight each other?
I want to see footage of "vehicle spam" that somehow makes infantry irrelevant. I've never seen such a thing.
I also REALLY like the idea of "Spawn interdiction field" Sundys. However, I think this would really shine as a new Galaxy role: So long as a properly equipped galaxy is loitering overhead, enemy Sundy's are incapable of spawning troops.
Having AMS disruptors that can be moved around is a huge can of worms. What happens when an AMS vehicle is already deployed when this Galaxy moves overhead? It loses spawn capabilities? Then what stops someone from just making 10 Galaxies with a single pilot each that circle the base while the rest of their forces kill all the attacking Sunderers?
This kind of approach to balance doesn't really foster clever tactical thinking, because anything that's contingent on survivability for its effect can too easily be freed from all downsides by just mass spawning the unit.
The whole reason why Sunderers have the deploy exclusion zone around them is because when you could put multiple AMSes right next to each other people would inoculate their spawn capabilities to being taken down by just putting 3, 4, 5 Sunderers right next to each other, which set the bar for taking them down before a new one arrived extremely high.
Figment
2013-02-26, 08:34 PM
Ah, you're only fighting in zergfit size groups. Makes sense, but that's just one form of gameplay. Whole different gameplay in fact, because you're less reliant on others and can cover far more insane holes in your defenses.
We're frequently fighting with single squads or less on Miller. Try that for a while and try holding a base (by which I mean, from a base to a tower to the smallest of outposts). Chances are you can't exit the smallest of spawn rooms at all and will have severe issues covering the 50m to 130m to the CC.
You know, the point where people quit fighting because it's hopeless. And before you say get a bigger outfit: no. The game needs to cater to small and large groups and individuals if it wants to reach as large an audience as possible. That isn't a stubborn thing to say, that's fact. You can't only design for the zerg size outfits, whether organised or not. That's going to chase everyone away from the game.
Saintlycow
2013-02-26, 09:45 PM
There's also the possibility that limiting the number of spawns an AMS can provide before refueling might allow for the return of the Galaxy AMS in a more balanced manner, if that ticket number were kept low enough.
I also REALLY like the idea of "Spawn interdiction field" Sundys. However, I think this would really shine as a new Galaxy role: So long as a properly equipped galaxy is loitering overhead, enemy Sundy's are incapable of spawning troops.
I've promotted the first idea before, but the second is pure genius!
Rothnang
2013-02-27, 01:44 AM
Ah, you're only fighting in zergfit size groups. Makes sense, but that's just one form of gameplay. Whole different gameplay in fact, because you're less reliant on others and can cover far more insane holes in your defenses.
We're frequently fighting with single squads or less on Miller. Try that for a while and try holding a base (by which I mean, from a base to a tower to the smallest of outposts). Chances are you can't exit the smallest of spawn rooms at all and will have severe issues covering the 50m to 130m to the CC.
You know, the point where people quit fighting because it's hopeless. And before you say get a bigger outfit: no. The game needs to cater to small and large groups and individuals if it wants to reach as large an audience as possible. That isn't a stubborn thing to say, that's fact. You can't only design for the zerg size outfits, whether organised or not. That's going to chase everyone away from the game.
Small outfits can way too easily get steamrolled by a Zerg when they are defending, that is absolutely true. Defending bases should be job of smaller groups, and in order for them to do that the bases need to be defensible, or at the very least, need to allow a small group to hold out for the 10-15 minutes it takes for serious reinforcements to get there. You should have to siege a defended outpost, not just walk right over it.
However, I just don't see how vehicles are at fault for making it impossible to stand up to a huge zerg. In a squad vs. squad fight vehicles can make a pretty big difference, but they are still far from unbeatable. In fact, in squad sized fights vehicles tend to be much more vulnerable, in my experience, because a squad sized force can't cover every single unit in the game, so if they have vehicles you can often pull very specific counters.
Figment
2013-02-27, 04:05 AM
The problem Rothnang, is that taking out even one Magrider or Liberator takes so much time in comparison to the capture time, that even if you take out three tanks, you have three seconds left to kill everyone at the CC and reset it.
Vehicles are something you can't prioritise to take out till after you control the CC. You simply can't afford not moving on the CC because that takes enough time to clear and hold. But currently you can't get to the CC because you will get instantly killed by HE from an unit that has no business firing at you at that point of the fight. The current flow demands you prioritise fighting the siege units, rather than the insertion units (infantry).
That is what makes it impossible to defend the CC. Currently often times you get only one guy to a CC covered by five or more people by the time 80% of the timer has passed. This guy will die and he won't be able to make another run, because the time is up.
The outposts that disable spawns halfway are even worse for that: some of them have spawns so far away, that by the time you walk from your spawnpoint to the CC from the moment the CC starts turning, you already lost your spawnpoint. Thus any chance of reinforcements or trying to run it again. I feel that as long as a base isn't taken you should have a chance to spawn if the spawns havn't been destroyed. Otherwise there is no fight. But the CC (or SCU and gens) shouldn't be at a distance that makes you cross such large crossfire sensitive areas. In fact, any at all is ridiculous. Even more so if you get one life to try and get there, one life with these TTK lengths, including area of effect instant kill and vastly more players than in PS1 firing at you. It is a ridiculously bad combination of gameplay and game design elements. This game is designed as a small scale map deathmatch. The defense update indicates how big a difference base design makes for hold vs deathmatch design. Their random disconnected building style doesn't do anything for the game. Those are nice for cover buildings but should not contain any worthwhile objectives.
And even when a CC is really close by, the design is horrible. Go to Peris station and cross the bridge, find the little CC and go inside, then look at the bridge. Then imagine HE shells and you having to be in that room for minutes, while one shell will kill you.
The task is impossible and that has everything to do with the type of units you are fighting and the geometry of where you are fighting. Especially if you consider when you use this area: after you been kicked out of the main facility, or while trying to invade.
Rothnang
2013-02-27, 11:00 AM
You actually make a really solid argument there, if there is a vehicle that can hit the capture point you can't kill the vehicle and hold the capture point at the same time unless you have a significant numbers advantage, that's true.
That is something that better base design can address to some degree, but I'm not entirely sure how that can be done without making vehicles categorically unable to hit anyone near capture points.
Personally I would have absolutely no problem with excluding vehicles from the fighting inside of a base, as long as there is enough of a logistics game outside of the base for vehicles to matter there. The notion of vehicle free bases just sucks with the current mechanics where that would leave vehicles no way to really affect the fight the second both belligerents have a spawn inside the base.
I mean, base design is also a factor there. With a ton of the bases in this game there are just way too many ways to get a Sunderer into the base pretty easily. You never see a base that is actually constructed like a military fort is, with a defensible glacis around it and standoff barriers that don't allow vehicles to come anywhere close to the structures without taking specific access points...
Figment
2013-02-27, 11:31 AM
The vehicle effort being predominantly focused on outdoor strategy is why I really enjoyed the PS1 siege mechanic of energy attrition. A well defended base could hold out extremely well (particular interlink sieges) against infantry, but they would ultimately end if they wern't relieved so they could stop base drain by repairing all systems, or by getting an ANT in on time to refill the base's supply. Yet it didn't have the vehicles take part in indoor combat. In fact, it encouraged drivers and gunners to get out and fight on more even footing (and oh the empty CY vehicle jacking, how I miss that).
I think everyone enjoyed the ANT system, UNLESS someone was draining all the bases in an area to grief another empire. That would make it very tedious to sort and could be very frustrating (need more people repairing and ANTing than you need to drain)
Mind, this got even worse when the base drain viral was introduced and players wern't limited to one active viral per player and bases wern't limited to virals over time).
The devs did say during Alpha they could always introduce an NTU system if there was a need for it.
Speaking of older versions of the NTU system. I believe that during PS1 beta - which I wasn't in btw - they tried to experiment with what caused the drain. At first they tried spawning, equipment pulling and vehicle acquisition, but this drained bases at extremely fast rates and players couldn't really comprehend the impact of a drain and would be too selfish to think in the interest of the empire there (conserving resources) and it could be abused by the attacker who could simply keep pulling units to drain the base's energy reserves.
For PS2 if we build on that drain mechanic though, we might find a way where the tedious repair part is removed. For instance, filling the energy level speeding up base repairs on structures that are not being damaged or recently took damage, so you don't have to find and repair each turret manually (but could for instance not apply to strategic objectives, which would require manual ("advanced") repairs). Or letting the refill shorten repairs, by automatically restoring up to 50% of the turrets.
Another interesting drain mechanic was the BFR's NTU siphon that could drain a base's energy up to 40% quite rapidly (and then use it for EMP blasts). You could see that mechanic as a form of siege unit that shortens the siege to a degree, but is otherwise quite vulnerable to threats.
That sort of smart application.
Rothnang
2013-02-27, 06:19 PM
I did post an idea that included a logistics system like the NTU from Planetside 2 a while ago.
I personally don't think pulling units and spawning to use up a bases resources is the wrong way to go, because it is the most accurate representation of attrition.
There could be a lock built in that stops you from pulling vehicles with the last 20% of your resources maybe, so that if you want to run a base completely dry you have to do it on infantry spawns, which would take a long time, and a lot of dead bodies.
As far as griefing is concerned, I don't think it would be that big of an issue if it takes several dozen people to run a base dry. I think the vast majority of players values fair play, and would much rather drain the enemies NTU by killing them a lot than by blowing themselves up a bunch of times.
I mean right now killing well defended Sunderers or taking down a haggle of AA Maxes by switching to their team is a possibility, but despite that being incredibly effective it's rarely done.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.