The reason why PS2 is shallow is not metagame.

[Rothnang]

Lack of Metagame is not the reason why the PS2 experience is shallow. People keep throwing "metagame" around as though it's somehow the magic bullet to everything that makes this game boring, but there is a giant Elephant in the room that nobody ever looks at, and that elephant is infinite respawning infantry.

Yea, half of you are already starting to type flame posts at this point, because if anyone insults the glorious infantry playing master race they are obviously just a vehile noob, but to those of you actually interested in hearing a fresh point of view, I'll try to explain:

Infantry fights in Planetside 2 are incredibly dumbed down to the point where I simply cannot enjoy them. The spawn mechanic and how completely meaningless it makes death is the single biggest reason for that, and by extension, the reason why Planetside 2 lacks depth in general.


Planetside 2 is supposed to simulate a vast and wide open battlefield, however, when you play infantry you never ever get a taste of that. The need to hitch a ride on a transport vehicle for all practical purposes is non-existent in PS2 currently. The only reason why people do it is because it's satisfying to act like combined arms means something for a minute here or there.

You can get to a battle by hitting instant action. If you don't have instant action available you can just redeploy and spawn hop your way to the front that way faster than any vehicle could ever move, and without ever leaving the safety of the spawn room. Even if you've just taken a base and you missed the Sunderer driving to the next one, all you need to do is redeploy and wait for the Sunderer to set up in the next base over, and voila, instant teleport into the fray.

This by itself just utterly shits on one of the biggest tactical aspects this game should have, because getting your guys to the front isn't a logistical challenge in PS2. They don't need help from vehicles getting around on the map. They never even need to set foot in the open areas outside of bases to go to every single place that matters in PS2. Why even bother with having a huge gigantic world if, at the root of it, the only unit that moves through it with purpose is the Sunderer, because that's the one single unit that has to actually move through the world to expand your spawn-network.


Medics are also marginalized to the point of being only a minor convenience, not the backbone of a successful assault by the spawn system. Infantry in theory is the only unit in the game that can stay in the field for an infinite amount of time. A squad with members of all classes is entirely self sufficient, and can accomplish pretty much any task set before it.

The reality is however, this game doesn't reward people for playing in a tight knit squad like that, it rewards people for rolling a Sunderer up to the enemy base, and doing a banzai charge, hoping that the base flips before the Sunderer gets blown up by a landmine suicide bomber who also doesn't really care about medics.


These two things alone make the game more shallow all by themselves already, but the really big thing that ultimately robs PS2 of depth is the fact that killing people simply doesn't matter.

A few months ago removing K/D from being one of the key stats in the game was a big thing that people kept talking about. "Everyone who worries about K/D is just stupid and doesn't get the game" seemed to be the sentiment of the day. My quesion is: Why does someone who worries about K/D not get the game? The answer is pretty simple: If Death doesn't matter, then neither Kills nor Deaths matter. Killing huge numbers of your enemies isn't something that meaningfully contributes to the fight.

The thing is, in a game where getting killed is a bad thing, and killing the enemy hurts them in some way K/D is not a meaningless measure that only stat whores care about. But that's not the kind of game Planetside 2 is currently. You can't win a battle in Planetside 2 by adopting a strategy that yields a particularly high K/D, because since neither you nor the enemy stay dead there is no such thing as attrition. You can't beset an enemy base with a small team of snipers and just pick off defenders until they are weakened to the point where you can move in and take them out for example. As a result there is no need for anyone to ever devise a counter-strategy to such an attack, and no need to devise a counter to the counter and so on. The only strategy that ever matters is "How can I get so many people into this base that they overwhelm the defenders, lock them in the spawn room, and can hold out like that till the point flips. Since that's the only strategy that works, there is no room in the game for clever thinking or the unexpected.


This is really ultimately the reason why this game lacks depth. 90% of all mechanics in Planetside 2 deal with the killing of people. Most of the functional skills that the players need to develop deal with the killing of people. The vast majority of group strategies that squads can employ deal with the killing of people. Yet the one thing that makes absolutely not a squirt of shit of difference in the grand scheme of things... is killing people.

Metagame would be nice to have, but in all honesty, it's the minute to minute ground pounding in this game that falls flat, because it's not your mastery of life and death that decide your fate in a world where death has no teeth.

[LoliLoveFart]

Oh man I have been starting to think this recently. When sundies couldn't be pulled from anything remotely looking electronic, losing your sundy was a huge deal. When they added sundies to every vehicle term all of a sudden it was fucking whack a mole where killing a sundy didn't mean jack they would just pull one from 10 seconds back and there would be no break in the fighting.

That and the amount of times i suggest suicide chaining to move from A to B incredibly fast makes me blush a little bit. I wish I knew how to make deaths mean something instead of a 10 second break in the fighting. I guess we have to hope SOE notices this and agrees with us haha.

[Goldymires]

The game is too convenient then?

[Rothnang]

Convenience in itself is not the problem. It's providing a convenience to players that overrules the core challenges of the game that is a problem.

A core challenge in any shooter should be how many people you kill and how little you die. In Planetside 2 that's pretty much not a factor at all in who wins a battle. Since the vast majority of what you do in a shooter and how you strategize in a shooter deals with killing and avoiding death this just absolutely kills Planetside 2s infantry gameplay. Making clever plans to kill your enemies is a fringe element of the game at best, and strategies that produce more XP, even if you die a lot as a result are always favored over strategies that give good K/D.

A challenge that should be unique to Planetside 2 is using transport vehicles to deal with the vast landmass in the game, that also gets entirely overruled by the spawn system.

Another challenge that is important to military shooters is rewarding teamplay and moving as a tight unit. That's also marginalized since respawning is often easier than getting resurrected.


So, the game should be as convenient as possible, but when you convenience yourself out of meaningful gameplay you enter the realm of dumbed down and shallow.

[Pella]

If you played BF3. You will recognize the much loved Metro Map. An all out frag fest. Little Tactics. Just get your farm on.

Now add in x2 of the amount of players on your screen. And you will arrive at PS2.

And im certain its where higby got his inspiration for PS2 from.

Fast paced. No Nonsense. Shooters. With Kill streaks to Boot. Thats what FPS players love. And that's what PS2 has been designed specifically for.

Sorry to say for the armchair generals here. But your out of luck.

[Ghoest9]

I agree its not "meta game" thats the big issue.

But the issue is more complicated than you describe.
At its core is that there is no reason to think or play strategically other than for fun.

From a ration perspective its better to capture something large as quick as possible than it is to think concurring in a defesible manner or even defending at all.
Most player play rationally or at least rationally to the degree that they understand the game.

[Rothnang]

Of course there are other issues, people have debated most of them to death already, and fixes are in the works. What really kills the game though is that at the end of it all there is no real way to trump superior numbers with superior strategy, and that's largely due to the fact that K/D doesn't matter.

Pella, I don't even think that having fast paced infantry combat is a huge problem. It's not even the fact that you can respawn in 10 seconds that's the problem. It's the fact that kills and deaths don't matter, the only thing that matters is how much of the base you can clamp down, and that's a fight that the larger force will always win.

Planetside 2 will have asymmetrical fights most of the time. The chances of getting two forces of equal numbers together is relatively low, which is why in this game it's actually way more important than in other games that a good strategy that allows you to outkill a larger force can lead you to victory. This is essential for Planetside 2, precisely because you don't get teams of equal numbers and a timer that runs down.

[Ghoest9]

What really kills the game though is that at the end of it all there is no real way to trump superior numbers with superior strategy, and that's largely due to the fact that K/D doesn't matter.



To be frank - this is utterly and completely wrong.

In fact superior strategy can take base after base with small numbers. And isolate large bases which usually then fall when the defenders get bored. You wont directly push a superior force out of a given base in most cases which in fact makes sense strategically. But you can easily take other bases with small forces.

In a strategic sense this game greatly favor a small force interested in map control over zergs which just want points for capping large bases.



Perhaps you would like the actual fights to favor skilled players over zerg players but thats purely a tactical issue.

[Baneblade]

I think it would be better if the Sunderer was only able to be spawned at the Warpgate.

[Rothnang]

Sure a small force can win under the right circumstances, but the point I'm making is that a shooters primary focus when it comes to mechanics, skills and tactics is on killing people and avoiding to be killed. You can play in a way where you harass a larger force and wear them down, but the game doesn't do anything that allows you to win that way.


If a base had a limited number of spawn tickets for both sides for example, which is even between the two even if the number of people in the base is not you'd see people actually building strategies based on what ratio of kills to deaths they need to attain to win.

[p0intman]

You know what would be awesome?

An actual AMS with a cloak bubble, and the ability to kill spawntubes instead of spawncamp til somebody bothers to kill a gen.

also map design that encourages defending bases in such a way where you aren't retarded for doing so.
The reality is however, this game doesn't reward people for playing in a tight knit squad like that, it rewards people for rolling a Sunderer up to the enemy base, and doing a banzai charge, hoping that the base flips before the Sunderer gets blown up by a landmine suicide bomber who also doesn't really care about medics.

Fucking key paragraph right there.

I've been saying that a for a long while now.

But no, its "too much like PS1 and too linear and not open enough". Neither myself nor the OP have a point. Nope.

[zulu]

Well, I think the lack of a metagame (or, more specifically, a lack of incentive to play with the map) does contribute to a lack of depth on the field. Example: If your enemy is just rolling in a huge armored column, coming to take your base, a good option would be to counterattack elsewhere -- perhaps at their tech plant to prevent them from pulling more MBTs. Or maybe you could attempt to encircle them, cutting them off from more armor reinforcements.

But attacking elsewhere isn't going to get you much. Yeah, maybe you can take the tech plant and stop them from pulling more tanks, but people want to either get certs so they can unlock fun stuff or win. And seeing as there are no "win" conditions beyond "win this single battle," that means most people are just going to chase certs, and that means probably just attacking the tank column (and then when the tank column destroys their smaller, piecemeal force, they'll start complaining about "tank spam" on the global chat).

So that leaves encircling, but that has no real effect -- not quickly, anyways. Eventually you might wear down the enemy army when they start to run out of MAXes or lightnings or sunderers, but probably not. More people will spawn in the area, they will bring their resources, and little gets done.

So there's no real reason to go anywhere but where the enemy is massed. Zergs running into each other guarantees certs, which allow you to play the game in a way that pleases you.

Giving players a real reason to play with the map -- to attack in multiple places, to counterattack,, to encircle the enemy and cut him off from reinforcements -- would undoubtedly make the game deeper and more interesting.

Infantry respawning is a related issue, but frankly I only see a few ways to change that that would be acceptable. I think few people want to be forced to, say, respawn at a nearby base and be shuttled into battle, because I don't think many people would be willing to run the shuttle service. OTOH, people do run resupply/repair sunderers, so perhaps it could work with enough of an XP incentive (say, you get XP for offloading people into an enemy hex, or the deployment kill XP bonus time would be extended significantly).

I think you've talked before about limiting the number of people who could spawn at a sunderer -- making it limited to a squad or platoon. I don't know about that. I don't think that could work at all.

Making the map matter could do a lot. I don't know, though. But at the moment I think what we have is a more free and open version of Battlefield, basically. That's not bad, but it's perhaps also not what people imagined when they started playing the game.

[Aaron]

I understand where you're coming from, and I wish there was some depth akin to this. However, since PS2 isn't match based, there's a heavy price it has to pay for adding more meaningful actions (ones that actually hurt the enemy when you hurt them). That price is the speed of getting players to the action, getting them there quickly, and maintaining a persistent fight for the duration of their play session. The outfits and squads will look after their own, but the new player/solo player/player that doesn't even want to spend five minutes organizing an attack might give up in frustration.

[CToxin]

I have to agree that death is completely meaningless and therefore so is killing.
If I may, a couple of quick thoughts on solutions:
Resource cost to respawn. This can either draw on your infantry resources, a small amount, say 20-30.

Respawns deplete a recharging resource from spawn points and sunderers.
Facilites have 200 units, outposts have 100 units and satellite bases have 75. Sunderers would have 50 units (upgrade-able) (these are all just random numbers really). Every respawn depletes say 5 units and the base generates say 1 unit every few seconds. Sunderers would have to go to a friendly resupply tower to resupply units.


These are just two quick thoughts I had on a possible solution. I hope the idea gets through more so than the specifics.

[Rothnang]

Yea, some kind of cost attached to respawning that acts as a type of respawn ticket might be a good first step toward allowing strategies that work on killing to be successful, and thereby open up the vast majority of the games mechanics to being the basis for success, as opposed to just window dressing for the same hand full of mechanics. Generators and Sunderers and Control Consoles aren't a bad thing, the problem is that they are the only thing that currently matters.

[zulu]

Yea, some kind of cost attached to respawning that acts as a type of respawn ticket might be a good first step toward allowing strategies that work on killing to be successful, and thereby open up the vast majority of the games mechanics to being the basis for success, as opposed to just window dressing for the same hand full of mechanics. Generators and Sunderers and Control Consoles aren't a bad thing, the problem is that they are the only thing that currently matters.

What if you had a certain number of tickets based upon surrounding territories or something? So, to look at the new map:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20130302_5132d0376fa72.jpg

Let's say TR is attacking Tawrich Tech Plant. Maybe they could get 250 tickets for each adjacent territory they control. If you run out of tickets, then you can't respawn in the area until the tickets regenerate or something. So territory would matter quite a bit, but successfully defending a base would also mean that you have time to stage a counterattack (since your enemy won't be able to attack you for a while without simply shuttling in infantry with sunderers and galaxies).

Something like that could work but also still keep the battles fast-paced.

[OCNSethy]

I have to agree with almost all of the views in this thread.

I played for about 4 hours last night, the first two hours I played as a sniper attacking Ti Alloys and that okay. However it became very apparent it was a farm fest as there was very little in the way of attempting to take the plant. Waay to many tanks and not enough feet on the ground.

The last two hours I played as an engi at Allatum Bio Lab following the MAXs around repairing, laying claymores and ammo. Again, it was repeative as the both Alloys and Allatum flipped 4 times during that session.

I hear what you are all saying about spawning and spawn limits but given the lore around rebirthing, we might be pushing it up hill with a pointy stick trying to get changes through.

Im at the point where I think SOE and the devs just want to get bums into the game regardless of the implications to the game. Given this, I really think the only reward carrott this game has at the moment is the promise of certs. Everyone I saw last night, including me, where chasing them.

I dunno guys, i really like this game but without a radical rethink on the part of the devs, I cant see gameplay improving anytime soon.

[Fishy]

PS1 had a more limited spawn mechanism and it was one of the things that hindered the flow of the game, I think the abundance of spawn options is a lesson learned.

[Rothnang]

Well, there has to be a balance between making death matter and cutting people some slack.

Replacing the SCU mechanic with respawn tickets that slowly regenerate, and having Sunderers only give a limited number of respawns unless they are somehow resupplied would be an interesting start. I don't know if that would work in any way, but I like the idea of spawn tickets simply because they serve as somewhat of an equalizing force when the number of people in the battle isn't even. If there are a lot fewer people on one faction than the other you will have an easier time killing them, but you will still have fewer people to kill, so their tickets will last longer. A huge group of people on the other hand is a liability if they get killed way too much.

[Mietz]

PS2 is designed to be a fragfest.

Ticket mechanics wont change the combat and will ultimately only lead to very conservative and slow play which the design team doesn't want, like, at all.
PS2 is a Rush game, its gameplay experience is too inconsistent to be able to benefit from ticket or respawn limitation mechanics.

I've drawn this analogy before: Heroes And Generals (currently in o. beta)

H&G has a strategic and FPS side. In the strategic side you move troops via links between maps and these troops represent your resources available on the field.
Theres only so many tanks, airplanes, APCs available and only so many slots for specific infantry.

You even get a timer when you move forward spawn-points in the map itself, simulating the troop-movement.

This works because the gameplay is more methodic, the guns perform very good over long and medium range. Maps have multiple ways/routes to achieve an objective. (weapon) TTK is very low.
Terrain is better designed and cover as well as obscuring LOS plentiful (tall grass, trees, brush). The game is balanced for both holding and assault of objectives. Troop-dispersal is quite large even in battles that are chock full of people, providing less concentrated damage potential (explosives kill-whoring).

In comparison most PS2 guns perform badly at long/medium range and severely lose accuracy and damage. TTK is too long for long range fights with most guns (except sniper rifles). Regenerating health/shields provides too much of an edge for conservative fighting and leads to stalemates. The whole game is balanced around rushing close and blasting with full auto as the concentration of targets is larger.

Maps don't support conservative play, there is no way to hole up and play defensively, no obscuring LOS (grass can be turned off, dorrito spotting).

Targets can not be approached differently, "maps"/regions can but once it comes to an objective like an SCU you have to take it from one possible way, or if there are multiple, they are usually completely equivalent (no gradation of difficulty in objective approach).

I don't think that PS2s design could be adapted for ticket or resource play at this stage as it would undermine the main gunplay and combat mechanics.

[wave]

PS1 actually made death "hurt". Your spawn time was increased in proportion to how fast you were dying in a certain area. PS2 has no "hurt" in death.

[Kail]

Well, there has to be a balance between making death matter and cutting people some slack.

Replacing the SCU mechanic with respawn tickets that slowly regenerate, and having Sunderers only give a limited number of respawns unless they are somehow resupplied would be an interesting start. I don't know if that would work in any way, but I like the idea of spawn tickets simply because they serve as somewhat of an equalizing force when the number of people in the battle isn't even. If there are a lot fewer people on one faction than the other you will have an easier time killing them, but you will still have fewer people to kill, so their tickets will last longer. A huge group of people on the other hand is a liability if they get killed way too much.

That would severely hurt team play; squads / outfits wouldn't want randoms using up their tickets, and new players or not-so-great players would actively hurt an attack or defense.

I think the spawning system is fine by and large with a couple caveats:

Available spawn locations can be almost half a continent at times
Reviving at a sunderer takes less time than at a base (this is completely backwards to me)
while hotspot deploy is great for quickly getting you into a fight, I think it should have been a hybrid of the HART system (instead of waiting for the shuttle, you can use it from a warpgate every 15min at most). You can argue that Redeploy > Warpgate + Hotdrop isn't terribly different than just Hotdrop, but I think that extra step does a lot for the mentality of a player. You're not just flitting around the battlefield, you're heading back to base to redeploy.

[Silent Thunder]

I could maybe see it working with resources, but absolutly not with tickets. The problem with tickets is that although the idea of it is intended to push players to more careful, strategic play, at the end of the day there will always be the half dozen or so players who will still ramborush everything, costing their side tickets, and making the experience arguably much, much worse for teh players who attempted to do things strategically.

EDIT: Damn, ninja'd

I will say that Sunderers should only be able to be pulled from the same bases as MBTs, although I would wave the tech plant requirement in that case for Sundies.

[Baneblade]

The largest problem with the current spawn system is that offensive spawns are faster than defensive spawns. Mobile spawns should always be the slowest possible spawn option.

[basti]

I see your point OP, but your solution is crap.


Infantary always need to spawn forever from any given spawn point. Otherwise you get quite the imbalance between big and small battles.



The real problem is the Spawning itself. Planetside had it in a good direction, but not quite right. In Planetside, spawning at a base was faster than at an AMS. On top of that, the more you died, the longer it took for you to spawn again.


Granted, planetside numbers got insane, with spawn timers of 30 seconds etc. But the basic idea is a good one: Spawning at a base should be a lot faster than at a AMS. The whole "longer spawn time the more often you die" thing can happily stay away, it punishes new players way to much. But spawn timers need to be somewhat longer. Maybe 5-7 Sec for bases, 10 sec for AMSes.


The next important thing is where you can get AMSes. They should be only spawnable at the terminals where you can get tanks from. The whole "AMSes everywhere" thing was never asked for, and we never wanted it. It really needs to be removed now.






What the game needs is logistics. Attacks on bases need to form, rather than having people just randomly roll out everywhere. For this to happen we first need more natural direction, means something like Marlons new hex system prototype, something that naturally tells everyone where they should go, and where the enemy is coming from.
Once we got that, it should be pretty easy to set up proper defence positions, allowing both the defender and the attacker to form up in proper armys, rolling out together, instead of just being a mindless mob.

[Badjuju]

Lack of Metagame is not the reason why the PS2 experience is shallow. People keep throwing "metagame" around as though it's somehow the magic bullet to everything that makes this game boring, but there is a giant Elephant in the room that nobody ever looks at, and that elephant is infinite respawning infantry.

Yea, half of you are already starting to type flame posts at this point, because if anyone insults the glorious infantry playing master race they are obviously just a vehile noob, but to those of you actually interested in hearing a fresh point of view, I'll try to explain:

Infantry fights in Planetside 2 are incredibly dumbed down to the point where I simply cannot enjoy them. The spawn mechanic and how completely meaningless it makes death is the single biggest reason for that, and by extension, the reason why Planetside 2 lacks depth in general.


Planetside 2 is supposed to simulate a vast and wide open battlefield, however, when you play infantry you never ever get a taste of that. The need to hitch a ride on a transport vehicle for all practical purposes is non-existent in PS2 currently. The only reason why people do it is because it's satisfying to act like combined arms means something for a minute here or there.

You can get to a battle by hitting instant action. If you don't have instant action available you can just redeploy and spawn hop your way to the front that way faster than any vehicle could ever move, and without ever leaving the safety of the spawn room. Even if you've just taken a base and you missed the Sunderer driving to the next one, all you need to do is redeploy and wait for the Sunderer to set up in the next base over, and voila, instant teleport into the fray.

This by itself just utterly shits on one of the biggest tactical aspects this game should have, because getting your guys to the front isn't a logistical challenge in PS2. They don't need help from vehicles getting around on the map. They never even need to set foot in the open areas outside of bases to go to every single place that matters in PS2. Why even bother with having a huge gigantic world if, at the root of it, the only unit that moves through it with purpose is the Sunderer, because that's the one single unit that has to actually move through the world to expand your spawn-network.


Medics are also marginalized to the point of being only a minor convenience, not the backbone of a successful assault by the spawn system. Infantry in theory is the only unit in the game that can stay in the field for an infinite amount of time. A squad with members of all classes is entirely self sufficient, and can accomplish pretty much any task set before it.

The reality is however, this game doesn't reward people for playing in a tight knit squad like that, it rewards people for rolling a Sunderer up to the enemy base, and doing a banzai charge, hoping that the base flips before the Sunderer gets blown up by a landmine suicide bomber who also doesn't really care about medics.


These two things alone make the game more shallow all by themselves already, but the really big thing that ultimately robs PS2 of depth is the fact that killing people simply doesn't matter.

A few months ago removing K/D from being one of the key stats in the game was a big thing that people kept talking about. "Everyone who worries about K/D is just stupid and doesn't get the game" seemed to be the sentiment of the day. My quesion is: Why does someone who worries about K/D not get the game? The answer is pretty simple: If Death doesn't matter, then neither Kills nor Deaths matter. Killing huge numbers of your enemies isn't something that meaningfully contributes to the fight.

The thing is, in a game where getting killed is a bad thing, and killing the enemy hurts them in some way K/D is not a meaningless measure that only stat whores care about. But that's not the kind of game Planetside 2 is currently. You can't win a battle in Planetside 2 by adopting a strategy that yields a particularly high K/D, because since neither you nor the enemy stay dead there is no such thing as attrition. You can't beset an enemy base with a small team of snipers and just pick off defenders until they are weakened to the point where you can move in and take them out for example. As a result there is no need for anyone to ever devise a counter-strategy to such an attack, and no need to devise a counter to the counter and so on. The only strategy that ever matters is "How can I get so many people into this base that they overwhelm the defenders, lock them in the spawn room, and can hold out like that till the point flips. Since that's the only strategy that works, there is no room in the game for clever thinking or the unexpected.


This is really ultimately the reason why this game lacks depth. 90% of all mechanics in Planetside 2 deal with the killing of people. Most of the functional skills that the players need to develop deal with the killing of people. The vast majority of group strategies that squads can employ deal with the killing of people. Yet the one thing that makes absolutely not a squirt of shit of difference in the grand scheme of things... is killing people.

Metagame would be nice to have, but in all honesty, it's the minute to minute ground pounding in this game that falls flat, because it's not your mastery of life and death that decide your fate in a world where death has no teeth.

Completely disagree. PS1 had infinite spawning and so far I have yet to play a game with as much depth as that. Spawning isn't the issue. Perhapse not having a SOI limiting drop pods, no deploy zones in bases, or spawn room design may contribute to spawn issues. However the game is bigger than just whether you liver or die. I think there should be changes made to restrict attackers capabilities to flood I players since there isnt any real interior to bases, which is included in my statement above.

It is a collection of issues IMO. Bad battle flow with current hex system, ability to spawn to close to objectives, burning flag system on major bases, lack of diverse capture methods/targets to assault, no real interior of bases.

I dissagree that death dosnt matter in PS2 however there are ways to make death matter more with out removing some ones ability to spawn (which I think is an all around bad idea). For one, you can have a war of attrition with out saying, "well it was an intense battle but too many of you died. Sorry, I know you put up a good defense which can often result in allot of deaths but your done".

In PS1 bases had power supplies which drained as people used in base equipment such as terminals (maybe spawns too?). If you ran out of power, the base would become neutral and it would be up for grabs to whoever hacked it, assuming they returned power before the hack finished. To return power you had to charge a vehicle called an ant at the warp gate and bring it too your base. It would take some time to transfer energy to the base when deployed, making it very vulnerable.

This created the possibility for a war of attrition and added much more depth to the meta game. Not only could you dwindle some ones resources, but you could counter some ones attempt to do so by supplying your base with an ant (hard to do due to its vulnerability and attackers expecting it).

There are others contributions which makes death matter less as well. One of the biggest IMO is the burning flag system. The burning flag system favors numbers, and that is all. You can fight your way in, kill the enemy on the flag, but if they have more numbers they will probably just come own and take it back.

With the hack and hold system we had in PS1' dying was a big deal. One you could not spawn right on top of objectives as they were actually well inside of bases, and so were spawn tubes. More importantly, if some one hacked your base, they had to hold that hack for 15 minutes. If you broke through, killed their men on the objective and you re-secured the hack, then you struck a big blow. Them dieing allowed you to cancel out the hack completely, even if there was only 5 seconds to go, and they had to return all the way from outside at their AMS or tower to try and get another hack. You could often get tubes or the gen up allowing the rest of your empire to spawn in and possibly push back the aggressors.

I remember sitting in the CC of bases in PS1 after getting a hack on a base knowing they were going to come with gal drop to attempt a resecure. It was an exciting and nerv racking experience where death mattered allot, but my ability to spawn was never limited. You would fight to the bitter end knowing that if you held on just long enough to get the hack off, you could repair the spawn tubes and have a stronghold within the base which was now yours. So far I have yet to have this experience in PS1.

In PS2 there is no interior to the bases as far as I am concerned. Instead of fighting to approach the base, then battling for the court yard, then pushing into the large interior to the base to destroy the tubes or gen (both prevented spawning) and hack the CC; we now only fight to approach the base, then win the courtyard and its game over (all while fighting for tiny huts and basically a big vulnerable hanger we call a base). And when we get this hanger we wait for the flag to tick, not concerned with life or death as if the enemy clears the flag room, its ok. We just hop back in and all is well since they can't cancell out our progress, it just lslowely ticks the other way until we return for our sundie 30 yards away.

My point is that I don't think unlimited spawning is an issue in the slightest. There are all kinds of mechanics which can contribute to the importance of surving in a game. I don't see the need to irritate people with mechanics which limit their ability to spawn, or how you can implement this in a way that is fair for both the attackers and defenders with out making people miserable.

I'll agree that dieing isn't a huge deal, and the game play from an objective perspective is stale. But I think it has more to do with how close we can spawn to base objectives since their isn't that large intricate interior of the base posing as a spawn barrier and protecting objectives from vehicle spam; and of course the capture method posing no risk of resecure with out an overwhelming assault. If the bases are not going to have proper interiors with the objectives and spawn tucked within them, then there should be no-deplorable zones on bases.

When I stop and think about it, it is amazing how boring base fights are in PS2 with the design and capture philosophy compared to PS1. So yes it is boring because getting killed and defending means little and the fights are not intense at all, but I don't think it is due to our ability to keep spawning.

Ps. There will likely be odd words due to me typing on my autoincorrecting ipad and am too tired to proof read.

[Gonefshn]

How long do you suggest a player should sit there and do nothing after every time they die?

Maybe for a lot of people your idea would be more fun but if you made it so that you had a huge respawn timer 90% of the people would not play anymore.

How would this be a good idea if it takes out all the fun for probably over 3/4 of the population?

I would be pissed if I had to wait a really really long time to actually be in a fight, probably would quit playing.

Your idea isn't bad it's just a totally different and totally niche game.
It might seem like this has huge approval from people posting but that's because those 90% of people that would leave are the people who don't care enough to be on forums.

You might be right about it lacking depth but the reality is most people don't want a game with that much depth.

[mirwalk]

The issue I feel is not the infinite spawn but the low TTK. Higher TTKs allow skilled players to hold or push locations easier. Most nights I am on, we have shotgunning LAs, headshot snipers, Bombarding tanks, and grenade spam. All taking advantage of the fact you can down people quickly.

If it was harder to kill a person, then taking defensive positions, unit cohesion, and classes matter more. The design of things may need to be changed to not over power defensive setups but I think it would work at lot better instead of people doing whatever will allow them to rack up easy kills. Cause when those people are on a streak, they far outstrip the XP they would get supporting, or taking a position.

[Vashyo]

You might be right about it lacking depth but the reality is most people don't want a game with that much depth.

Remember that half the players don't even play the game as it is, so I think most people don't agree with you and do want some depth to the game. Player numbers keep on dropping.

[MrVicchio]

I think too many of you have nostalgia for a bygone game and are looking backwards instead of forward.

Two things change the meta-game of PS2 from previous iterations; time and size. It's 2013, technology, experience, markets have changed. We have better tech, which means more people can play in a battle and experience of the dev team to cater a game that works with the large battlefields and still cater to the modern FPS Market. But the real crux of all this is size of the population able to participate in battle. Whatever meta game, deep thinking that applied in PS1... doesn't anymore. The battles are too big, far more random then anything PS1 could have dreamed of.

I've been involved in some long long attrition battles, good times. Hell yesterday on Matherson there was a fight over the Altium?(spelling?) Biolab that raged for... HOURS.



Personally I think the biggest problem with PS2 is the exp reward for taking empty bases and no xp reward for defending.

[camycamera]

okay sir, i see your point. but how do you propose you fix this?

and i am going to throw this question in here as well (note: i have never played PS1):

how did spawning work in PS1? was it any different? was it the same? if different, could it be implemented into PS2? also, if it is the same, didn't PS1 have the same problem as well?

because i don't see a solution to this problem, really, unless someone comes up with one. go, do it plex.

EDIT:

i read some of the previous posts, but not really (tldr)

i guess some sort of ticket system could be implemented somehow...?????

[Ailos]

I agree with about 90% of what's been said in the thread so far.

I don't much care for the whack-a-mole issue that spawning sundies at all terminals has created. It's annoying, and it really does detract from the logistics it should take to bring an empire-wide spawn point to the front lines.

I'm not sure that this doesn't reward tight-knit squadplay though. I guess that really comes down to what you think is rewarding about the game. To me, the rewarding part is undertaking improbable tasks like stopping a massive enemy assault push with only a six-man squad, denying capture, or isolating the current target of the zerg with a similarly sized group. What detracts from that sense of achievement though is the knowledge that in approximately 5 minutes everything will return back to the way it was before because inevitably, someone somewhere will pull a sundy and catch up to us.

I don't think that respawn tickets are a good solution to this problem. The last thing this game needs is another mechanic from BF3. Do not misunderstand me - BF3 has its own merits in many cases, but I do not think this particular mechanic can be transplanted to PlanetSide. The whole ticket thing works well in a 16vs16 foot match, it really starts falling apart in BF3s 32vs32 matches where vehicles become more prevalent, and the side that starts out with managing to pilot their vehicles a little better gets that advantage multiplied and end up dominating the match for the short duration of the tickets running out. That problem will only be amplified in PS2's population numbers, but no one will ever get a reset and a fresh start to try again. Not that it can't be balanced, but in PS2, where it's a 3-way instead of a 2-way battle, the last thing we need is another thing to balance. Implementing a spawn ticket system in PS2 will end up monopolizing servers for a given empire, IMO, and that rather defeats the point.

I think the simplest solution is to make bringing a spawn point forward a much bigger compromise. AMS sundies should not be still able to carry a full squad. They should not be available everywhere as a basic unit of transportation (i.e. Sundies pulled from outposts should not be able to be equipped with the AMS module). I could even get behind the idea that AMS-equipped sundies should only be spawned at warpgates. I also think that if sundies remain as available as they do now, they should be available to squadmates only.

[Figment]

It can easily be argued that making K/D matter more encourages farming behaviour and less risk taking, not depth.

Considering the TTK being so low, this would embolden the largest group with short TTK weapons. The only way for a numerically smaller group to win is by removing the spawns of an opponent and then spawn sufficient times to take them all out (since the low TTK assures even the best of players will die when faced with poor numerical odds).


Especially tickets on fixed positions would be horrendous to defense viability, considering HE spam. Sitting back at long distance and control the outer terrain would mean the defense would run out of tickets without even breaking a sweat.

Tickets on AMSes would be entirely arbitrary numbers that would cause a lot of frustration. It would even cause frustration within an empire as people would have "ticketstolen their respawn point and disallowed them to be in a fun fight".





What needs to be done to limit people spawning, is to limit the people with spawning equipment access.

For crying outloud, do you realise how easy it is to get a S-AMS under the current cert system? Do you have any idea how few S-AMSes are stopped from getting to an interesting position unless they have to move through a camped area? You couldn't possibly stop the attrition of an attacking empire by introducing tickets if each attacker can bring their own S-AMS in the first place. All you would introduce is a greater volume of back up S-AMSes at every fight. :/


The other thing is that a ticker system is a match based system where it is expected that one side ultimately wins a round and rounds have to end. We're talking a consistent war here though, so to introduce a life ticker system could very well be a bit shoe horning it in.

One might as well introduce "1-up mushrooms" or "100 coins for a 1-up", it's equally arbitrary.

[Qwan]

Sure a small force can win under the right circumstances, but the point I'm making is that a shooters primary focus when it comes to mechanics, skills and tactics is on killing people and avoiding to be killed. You can play in a way where you harass a larger force and wear them down, but the game doesn't do anything that allows you to win that way.


If a base had a limited number of spawn tickets for both sides for example, which is even between the two even if the number of people in the base is not you'd see people actually building strategies based on what ratio of kills to deaths they need to attain to win.

I feel ya, but there are tactics besides just having a larger number to over whelm the enemy at his base. If they have the spawn room and you have a sundy, then it comes to who can get the most people on the ground fastest. Then you count the medics, who slash respawn time down by ressing. It really comes down to influence, regardless of how big your force is, if you have higher influence, and skilled players (medic and engi's included) then you can take a base faster with a smaller force regardless of the force thats spawning in. This is were the skill of the medic, engi, and your squad make up over all comes into play. Granted when we would kill the enemy they would spawn back in, but we would resupply, lay mines, claymores, C4, and man the points to help the capture along. The K/D hores would stop spawning in, they didnt want to mess up there stats, the zerg which is un skilled and un corridinated would simply spawn in and run to the points blindly. We didnt camp the spawn rooms I rarely send more than two men to do that, I max out the points and keep an eye on influence. Because I know that speed of the hack makes the difference between dealing with a hord or dealing with randoms.

[ChipMHazard]

I agree with Basti's assesment and I don't agree with the thread's premise that making deaths more meanigful would make the game less shallow.

I don't think that introducing a ticket system would benefit the gameplay in a positive manner, quite the opposite. I don't see it has having any other real effect than promoting farming/camping tactics, making it possible to actually sabotage enemy faction efforts by faction jumping and punishing newer players even further.

A change that I do think would help would be to limit where you can spawn sunderers from (not from every bleedin terminal) and how easy it is to cert into the spawner option; not that this would really matter in the long run (given that enough players will eventually have enough spare cert points to dump) but it would help out against players being able to field them as easily.
Also changing how the spawn timer works for defenders and attackers looks like a reasonable suggestion i.e. attackers having a longer spawn time than defenders by upping spawn times on sunderers. Could perhaps even go further and have the spawn timer be somewhat based on how many sunderers there are in a given hex i.e. make spawn times slighty longer the more sunderers there are.

[Thunderhawk]

Forget Planetside 1 totally, our (old Players) arguments are no longer hinged on Planetside 1 fanatacism but looking at Planetside 2 as a game on itself with nothing to do with previous iterations.

Now, the OP's post:-

First point I have to make

Planetside 2 is a game where it basically is all about Spawn point control.

That is it, plain and simple.

If you take out all the spawn points of an enemy, you win.....even if they have a platoon of people with medics all over the place, you will still win, eventually.

The faction with the most spawn points will win every single fight, no matter what the fight is, what the facility is or what the outpost is.

So, looking at it from that point of view (Spawn point control) you need to look at the way that's provided in the field:-

1. Base spawns (be it outpost or main base).
2. Sunderers (S-AMS).
3. Medics (revives).

Out of those 3, the only thing that had a radical change was the Sunderer S-AMS being freely available to everyone with 50 certs (gained in 30 mins or less) and at ANY terminal.

This is the issue, AMS should not be pulled from Every single vehicle terminal in game, and once you change that back to what it was before, you will see a monstrous shift in the way battles move.

------------

Second point I have to make

K/D ration was bad if you are trying to treat Planetside 2 as a strategy shooter and not a FPS kill wh0re's paradise.

To that avail, removing K/d (well, making it less prominent) is pushing us closer to what planetside 2 Goal is (or should be) about which is taking territory.

To take Territoy, people have to die, look above to my first point as to the Person with the most spawn points, wins, and you will get my drift.

To make the game like that, you cannot punish people for dying, because that would mean people will not rush in, or attack bases for fear of being shot dead (TTK comes into play here as well, but I dont have time to go through that also).

So, The game is about the following (imho - others my argue otherwise)

1. Win the Spawn point battle.

Everything else follows from that one point........ and Worrying about deaths is irrelevant if you treat that as the main point.

[Hmr85]

You know what would be awesome?

An actual AMS with a cloak bubble, and the ability to kill spawntubes instead of spawncamp til somebody bothers to kill a gen.

also map design that encourages defending bases in such a way where you aren't retarded for doing so.


Fucking key paragraph right there.

I've been saying that a for a long while now.

But no, its "too much like PS1 and too linear and not open enough". Neither myself nor the OP have a point. Nope.

QFT

I agree 100%

[Figment]

The real problem is the Spawning itself. Planetside had it in a good direction, but not quite right. In Planetside, spawning at a base was faster than at an AMS.

Spawning at an AMS was actually 5 seconds faster: because defensive positions and choke points provided more defensive killing power, attackers needed this logistical benefit over defenders to push deep into a tower or facility. It helped ensure that the longer a siege would last, the greater the spawn advantage of the attackers. After all, it took quite some time to get deep into the facility and took less time for defenders to reach the same objectives and choke points.

Bio Labs reduced the time to spawn on hard points however. This was usualy overlooked as a strategical benefit due to the increasing spawn timers ending up at 30 seconds as the more you died, the slower you respawned. This element of attrition is currently missing in PS2 completely, what with standard spawn times that are significantly shorter.

The time of keeping an enemy out of the fight is greatly reduced in PS2, although there are some differences in spawn time, they're not really big enough to warrant a choice. You'll just wait for the closest one.

[Sonny]

If you played BF3. You will recognize the much loved Metro Map. An all out frag fest. Little Tactics. Just get your farm on.

Now add in x2 of the amount of players on your screen. And you will arrive at PS2.

And im certain its where higby got his inspiration for PS2 from.

Fast paced. No Nonsense. Shooters. With Kill streaks to Boot. Thats what FPS players love. And that's what PS2 has been designed specifically for.

Sorry to say for the armchair generals here. But your out of luck.

Have to agree with you there. PS 2 was specifically designed for the instant action player, not those interested in slow, protracted wars involving logistics, meaningful deaths etc.

Although it would be interesting to imagine if PS 2 had been designed as a war simulator - it could probably work as they would pick up a different player base. Maybe they could do a 'hardcore' server where all spawns take 30 seconds longer, sunderers can only be spawned from bases and we have logistic concerns put back into the game?

Sonny

[Figment]

How long do you suggest a player should sit there and do nothing after every time they die?

Maybe for a lot of people your idea would be more fun but if you made it so that you had a huge respawn timer 90% of the people would not play anymore.

How would this be a good idea if it takes out all the fun for probably over 3/4 of the population?

I would be pissed if I had to wait a really really long time to actually be in a fight, probably would quit playing.

Your idea isn't bad it's just a totally different and totally niche game.
It might seem like this has huge approval from people posting but that's because those 90% of people that would leave are the people who don't care enough to be on forums.

You might be right about it lacking depth but the reality is most people don't want a game with that much depth.

Don't know about you, but I'm a bit annoyed with the amount of assumptions made here about what 75-90% of the pop would do/want and suggesting that same group of people doesn't care enough to post on forums. I mean... There's no way for you to verify that without doing a survey on it first.



Anyway. "Sitting around" downtime is something that will happen in a game of this type period.

For instance, the problem with waiting at a CC to turn, is that there is no fight. Why is there no fight? Because it takes to sides to fight. Why aren't there two sides? Because one side has next to no incentive to attempt a recapture due to the system and challenges involved being too time consuming with too little support (too great a pressure) to be succesful in most situations. Hence you don't for instance see a last ditch Gal Drop attempt and people give up on attempting a capture, making sitting around at a CC nothing but moot.

Spawning after death of course has a bit different down time. The game forces you to not play as a reward for the person killing you, while you are punished as a consequence. That can be key to gameplay. Yet that can indeed be frustrating. On the other hand, the game could at the very least provide something to do with the downtime. For instance, give people a chance to gain more situational awareness of the continental and global conflict and provide information to base future decisions on.

You could also incentize spawning a bit further away as reinforcements. Of course, if that's too far away, that disrupts the local flow entirely.

[Maidere]

To make death more meaningful they have to increase TTK first.

[psijaka]

Some kind of respawn timer could perhaps be introduced on the AMS Sunderer; say limit the respawn rate to one respawn every 15 seconds or whatever, with cert improvement. EDIT - not sure about a ticket system; Figment and ChipM point out some flaws in such a system.

But, as things stand, I wouldn't be keen to see spawning limitations introduced on outpost spawn rooms until such time as action is taken against tank AoE spam, for obvious reasons. We don't want one person sitting in a tank behind a tree some 300m away to determine the outcome of an attack; that would be incredibly lame. Until farming of this type is restricted then infinite and fast respawns at outposts are necessary.

Suicide spawn hopping is highly undesirable, and could be easily prevented by allowing suicidees to respawn at the warp gate only. Simple.

[almalino]

Have to agree with you there. PS 2 was specifically designed for the instant action player, not those interested in slow, protracted wars involving logistics, meaningful deaths etc.Maybe they could do a 'hardcore' server where all spawns take 30 seconds longer, sunderers can only be spawned from bases and we have logistic concerns put back into the game?

Sonny

Or may be they should introduce less Sunderer spawn points in a new coming continent so that battles there are more about avoiding to die because it is painful.

[Thunderhawk]

Suicide spawn hopping doesn't even affect your K/D ratio if you use "Redeploy" in bottom right corner of the map.

It doesn't count as a death.

[psijaka]

Suicide spawn hopping doesn't even affect your K/D ratio if you use "Redeploy" in bottom right corner of the map.

It doesn't count as a death.

Thought that it did. Thought that I've had a death or suicide message of some sort in the past when I have clicked "redeploy", so I never use it now.

[Bocheezu]

I remember sitting in the CC of bases in PS1 after getting a hack on a base knowing they were going to come with gal drop to attempt a resecure. It was an exciting and nerv racking experience where death mattered allot, but my ability to spawn was never limited. You would fight to the bitter end knowing that if you held on just long enough to get the hack off, you could repair the spawn tubes and have a stronghold within the base which was now yours. So far I have yet to have this experience in PS1.

I have moments like this, where situations remind me of PS1, but they are rare.

For instance, on my TR yesterday, we were fighting VS at Peris. This was a weird battle because VS only had the east satellite, and we had the north tower and west satellite to pull AMS/tanks and get back in the fight. The SCU was blown, but we had an AMS just outside the north wall, so it was like the SCU wasn't blown at all because people would LA jumpjet over the wall, run into the spawn room to change kits, and take the tunnels to the garage. The VS AMS was south of the SCU (the opposite side of the garage from the spawn room) so they were running from there to prevent us from resecuring.

So the two sides were fighting over the garage repeatedly, and it very much had a back-and-forth feel that reminded me of PS1. We eventually pushed up to take the capture point temporarily, but of course, we didn't resecure because of the stupid ticket system. VS had another push that kept us off the point long enough for them to take the base.

A few key things allowed this prolonged defense to happen:

1. Defenders being able to spawn in/near the base even though the SCU was down
2. Attackers not having an AMS in the garage right on top of the capture point

So I think there are two key suggestions. One of these was brought up in the SCU suggestions thread -- the SCU should just lower the spawn room shields, and attackers have to blow up the spawn tubes directly to prevent defenders from spawning.

Also, Malorn has mentioned that there should be no-deploy zones for AMS, so that attackers can't just drop one in the garage right on top of the capture point. I completely agree with this.

Both of these would boost defense significantly, and not to the point where it's impossible to take a base, since VS still managed to capture it. This was an interesting battle and very much out-of-the-norm for PS2.

[Rothnang]

When people say "A game where K/D matters encourages farming" that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say why shouldn't it matter? In a real war, would someone say "A strategy that kills as many enemies as possible while leaving as many of our own soldiers alive is just farming" ... hell no, that's the best kind of strategy there is.

The entire reward system, the combat system, the teamwork and the skillset, they are all built around killing people, so why shouldn't killing people in any way factor into who's winning in a territory?

Making Sunderers rare and more difficult to come by IMO just raises the stakes of Sundy-busting, but it doesn't do anything to change the fact that Sunderers are the only target that really matters when you're defending. It also doesn't in any way change how attacking works, and how futile it actually is when you have a huge enemy force defending a place with no way to starve them out even if you've completely cut them off.

Spawn Tickets in PS2 would not simply be limited, there would be ways of replenishing them, similar to the NTU system, or by having Sunderers make runs to a base to pick up more nanites for themselves.

I personally want to see a system that gets us away from having a single landmine in the right place deciding the whole fight while the hundreds of kills that happened in the rest of the base are all just farming when it really comes down to it.

[Babyfark McGeez]

When people say "A game where K/D matters encourages farming" that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say why shouldn't it matter? In a real war, would someone say "A strategy that kills as many enemies as possible while leaving as many of our own soldiers alive is just farming" ... hell no, that's the best kind of strategy there is.


There is a difference between that and focusing on your own personal k/d ratio. Keeping up TEAM K/D as a whole is a perfectly viable strategy (as in "how many troops did it take us to take that base opposed to the number of fallen defenders"), but the focus on your own personal k/d ratio over everything else all but discourages teamplay.
Like for example: Tank drivers ONLY hopping out to repair their own tank, and then right back in, because being outside their tank could hurt their k/d ratio. Situational awareness or just looking around if someone ELSE could use a repair or ammo? Naaah, back in that tank and rather just run over that yelling team mate.

Anyways, imo the underlying problematic of PS2 is not any k/d ratio but the focus on personal progression in this game. With that horrible, horrible "F2P", "MMO"-like unlocking system due to the hatecrime that is "skinner-box" based character progression these days.

THAT is the reason people give a damn about teamplay, territory and anything. And it will stay that way. So the ONLY way to encourage people to do...well basically anything, is to give them certs/xp for it. OTHERWISE THEY WON'T DO IT. On the other hand it also means that aslong as you give XP/CERTSCERTS for it, PEOPLE WILL DO ALMOST ANYTHING. They would stare at a spawntube for hours if it would give CERTSCERTS.

Here's a fun test: Go repair a vehicle, when it doesn't give xp (maybe it took friendly damage, or the driver looked after dat vanu ass and hit a tree), do you stop repairing or atleast consider it for a second? Congratulations, the model works. Your team-mates vehicle won't.

That's the result of going with a mechanic/business model that hinders developers and players alike.
But in the end there is no game anymore these days that does not have "unlockable", "MMO" skinnerbox shit. Seriously, try to name one, because i can't think of any.

Sigh...now back from my ranting edge to the center stage please.

[Rothnang]

Well, you have a good point in saying personal K/D and team K/D aren't the same thing, and i'm not advocating making personal K/D super important. I just don't like that for example a sniper really contributes very little to a fight, when in reality he should be looked upon as a unit that's causing constant attrition to the enemy without costing your own team a lot of respawns.

[Figment]

1. Defenders being able to spawn in/near the base even though the SCU was down
2. Attackers not having an AMS in the garage right on top of the capture point

So I think there are two key suggestions. One of these was brought up in the SCU suggestions thread -- the SCU should just lower the spawn room shields, and attackers have to blow up the spawn tubes directly to prevent defenders from spawning.

Also, Malorn has mentioned that there should be no-deploy zones for AMS, so that attackers can't just drop one in the garage right on top of the capture point. I completely agree with this.

The problem with this is that you're looking at the position of the AMS, which can vary and restrictions would be arbitrarily imposed, rather than the position of the SCU and CC with respect to the AMS and ensure that there's a minimal distance between SCU and CC and that these aren't in an area where HE has great effect, or where there's one sided choke points favouring attackers (in this case, tunnel exits) or defenders (like the Bio Lab teleport tubes v1.0).

I mean, you first place the SCU and CC in easily accesible locations from the outside. Then realise they're too easily accesible and start finding ways to hamper access to it without actually re-evaluating if these are the positions you'd want these things to be in in the first place.




The core issue of everything is modular building placement without a vision of what kind of objectives should be in modular buildings, fixed buildings, combined into buildings, size of buildings etc. It is assumed that any size building will do and that any type of objective can be placed in buildings without buffer zones or spawn rooms.

The core issue is behind pretty much every conceivable problem is thus primarily base design and layout. Changing the position of the AMS won't matter much, if the approach to objective flow is poor for one side. For instance, by being completely blocked off and boxed in by a large variety and number of one shot kill HE units.


It would make much more sense to increase the distance to the CC and SCU from the AMS, rather than the distance from the AMS to the CC and SCU. ie. place the SCU and CC below ground closer to the spawns and requiring a minimal indoor distance traveled to reach it, rather than allowing any outdoor movement to be faster than the defenders can do from the spawns.

[ElSol]

I never played PS1, so I don't know how the Lattice/Spawn/Certing/ANT in this game felt. But from what I read it must have been an complete different system than that what we have now. And here is the problem that I have with the most suggestions that are coming up. They change the systems that we have now in PS2, but what we need (at least I think so) is more like an evolution than an complete change.

Sunderes should only be available at bases that also can spawn tanks (AMP, Bio Lab, Techplant, Towers). The availability should not recommend to have an Techplant because that would kill Esamir. The spawn times should be maybe 5 seconds more then on a base. And for every vehicle the countdown timer should start after the vehicle is destroyed, that is simple but it makes the countdown timer certs more useful and it lowers the "tank/sunderer spam". Resources are another thing that is coming to my mind. Maybe you should not gain them by killing, so you gain them slower and are more dependent on your territory at the same time it adds more value to your vehicle.
After doing that, when you know how that worked, maybe there should be no deploy zones for Sunderers. But I don’t have yet an idea how they should or could work without being unfair. Maybe there should be a little radius around spawn-, capture points and generators (but nut under Biolabs). That can make AMP Station attacking impossible/be great for little outposts.

Adding a Ticket system/NTU/ANT runs should never happen until you have a solution for the massive population differences you get at least on Esamir and Amerish. When one empire has a population of 50% - 70% I see no way that the outgunned and outnumbered empires can afford to send two or three people away for that. And don’t forget that there are a lot of lone wolves and squads that are not well organized. But when you see the population of one empire get that high you most likely have a outfit that is on "operations-day". The population "problem" is something that makes me pessimistic about the Lattice as well but that is a different story.

Another thing I would really like to see in this game is MORE statistics. Why do I only see my kills and deaths and my assists, why not show me how many points I have repaired (on vehicles, turrets and maxes), how many bullets/points I have supplied and people I have revived/healed. These numbers are likely higher than your kills (for me it will be so). Give me Medals for that as well! I like Medals and I don’t want to have to kill for Medals :- )

Yet another thing that maybe puts away a lot of the problems is the Mission System. You know where the Attacker Sunderer is? Make it a Mission to be destroyed (and now add on top of it that this Sunder is now on a cool down timer). Add a list in game where you can see the missions you have solved. I think a lot of people (including me!) have a problem that you can’t see or feel the difference you make while playing a 24/7 game that has no rounds that end and show you the result. But by seeing at the end of the day/your playtime: Today I have revived 23 people, healed/repaired a gazillion of points, finished 4 Missions and capped 12 bases while defending 18 you have a feeling that you did something.

[Chaff]

^
great ideas ElSol. By adding these sorts of stats, it indirectly should serve to reward teamplay.

PS2 is definitely still in Beta. I agree improvements/changes are grossly needed. On the other hand, in the last week or two I have enjoyed PS2 more than the month or two prior. I'm thinking about playing "more" the last couple weeks than I was the first two months of this year. Maybe the devs have made progress. Maybe these guys care far more than some of y'all seem willing or capable of acknowledging.

...and yes to Figment on;
"It would make much more sense to increase the distance to the CC and SCU from the AMS, rather than the distance from the AMS to the CC and SCU. ie. place the SCU and CC below ground closer to the spawns and requiring a minimal indoor distance traveled to reach it, rather than allowing any outdoor movement to be faster than the defenders can do from the spawns."

Change TTK:
Why we haven't seen this change yet leaves me a tad dumbfounded. And even though a longer TTK time grossly favors skilled players vs less-skilled players, I have to say TTK needs changing.
TTK on all infantry needs to increase 10%....then reevaluate.
TTK on all vehicles needs to be increased 5%....then, reevaluate.
.

[Badjuju]

The problem with this is that you're looking at the position of the AMS, which can vary and restrictions would be arbitrarily imposed, rather than the position of the SCU and CC with respect to the AMS and ensure that there's a minimal distance between SCU and CC and that these aren't in an area where HE has great effect, or where there's one sided choke points favouring attackers (in this case, tunnel exits) or defenders (like the Bio Lab teleport tubes v1.0).
.
I think we all agree on this, the problem is we don't have proper interiors to bases (tech and amp) which acted as a barrier to enemy spawning PS1. Having that large and intricate interior prevented enemies from spawning right on top of objectives. They had to travel a fair distance through the base to reach any objective. This is why some people are suggesting no deploy zones as you can park an AMS right on top of any objective or camp them with vehicles (as there is next to nothing making up the insides of bases).

I alluded to my next point, the proper interiors we had in PS1 also allowed objectives and spawn tubes to be properly protected (not vehicle camped and deep within the base). Because of this we also had the system where spawn tubes could be physically destroyed as you mentioned, since they were at the heart of the base instead of in a hut outside.

The base design we often refer too made things so much more fun IMO. I am not saying we should have mirror images but the actual interiors did allot for the overall game play. It did wonders actually. PS2 is no where close to producing equivalent fights for me at this point. They arn't fun for me, and I would rather fight in the field. In PS1 i looked forward to both fights. It is a problem if people don't like the fights which are suppose to matter the most.

They actually felt allot more like bases to me as well. Not a single base in PS2 feels like a meaningful objective, just courtyards with huts in them. There is no "this is our fortress now," just "this is our courtyard with an aesthetically pleasing useless structure in the middle."

As I've preached over and over, the burning flag capture system is awful, at least for large bases. There is no excitement to it, its not nearly as intense, and it limits your tactical options. Not to mention it heavily favors numbers. This is another big downfall to base fights and a big reason why death does not matter IMO.

An elite outfit can drop on a force with overwhelming numbers which has flipped the flag. They can break through, reach the flag, drop the enemy force, and then what? They wait for it to slowly tick as the opposing force regroups and floods in, pretty much taking over where they left off.

In PS1 these outfits would be feared, as well as the gal drop. If they broke through, they could cancel the hack removing your progress. This could help your faction in a number of ways. It could simply slow their momentum allowing you to prepare for the assault on the next target. It could give your faction time arrive with back up; or you may even get the tubes up as well during this assault, and you could completely re-secure the base, pushing the enemy out (assuming base design dosen't allow for vehicle camping.) The hack and hold system allowed for much more tactically diverse gameplay, and made living to defend a point (defensively and offensively) very important.

I think they devs did a good job updating the game to more modern fighting mechanics. However I think they strayed to far from the overall game mechanics and base design philosophy which is what made PS1 the game it was. Again, you don't have to make the same bases, but for the love of god make them feel and operate like a proper base, not a typical FPS shooter map. The bases look great and are massive from the outside, but then you walk in you say "oh, just a whole lot of nothing. Actually, not a whole lot, there is nothing to the inside." Huts in a court yard do not constitute a base for me.

[Badjuju]

^
Change TTK:
Why we haven't seen this change yet leaves me a tad dumbfounded. And even though a longer TTK time grossly favors skilled players vs less-skilled players, I have to say TTK needs changing.
TTK on all infantry needs to increase 10%....then reevaluate.
TTK on all vehicles needs to be increased 5%....then, reevaluate.
.

I can agree it is worth looking at. If you increase the TTK of infantry, or simply reduce vehicle effectiveness vs them to a fair degree, then you can increase vehicle health pools as well. I think i would favor an overall increase in TTK though as insta gib shotties seem silly to me. I have a competitive nature it is simply a way to make the game much more competitive from my perspective. I am ok with where it is at, but I think I would personally like a TTK increase. You would probably have to increase magazine count accordingly though.

[MrBloodworth]

I Do wish we had more shootouts, and less "Surprise I win". But that ship has sailed.

[Palerion]

I do agree with this Battlefield-style "ticket" idea. Give spawn points a limited number of spawns, or tickets, that regenerates at a certain rate when the base is not under attack. Very bare-bones idea of how that would work, but with some tweaking that could make combat much more fun. Personally I find it silly that a battle can rage endlessly. If you keep killing them, there must be a point where they'll run out of men to throw at you.

[MrMak]

I find it hilarious that people like Levelcap are complaing about the exact oposite thing.


Anyway something i tohught about was increasing the base spawn time siginificantly but adding an option to spawn faster at the cost of infantry resources. In the case of sunderers the cost would be inicialy low but would increase the more you die (this cincree is tied to you not any specific sunderer) and would slowly decrease the longer you stay alive and when you achieve extreme threat and menace status (if you are revived it does not count as a death but it would reset your "time alive" counter). Hard spawns would have 1 standard price all the time. This is based on the roumors that in the future you will no longer gain resources when you are in territory not connected to your warpgate.

This would achieve 2 things.

1. Recless offensives where people die and respanw constantly would eventualy run out of resources and be forced to endure a long spawn time giving the defenders an advantage.

2. Bases that are cut off eventualy share the same fate despite overall lower costs as people in them would not gain resources.

[Vonce]

You can get to a battle by hitting instant action. If you don't have instant action available you can just redeploy and spawn hop your way to the front that way faster than any vehicle could ever move, and without ever leaving the safety of the spawn room....

It's a two way street:
*ATM some bases cap so fast that even /suicide'ing with one midpoint - squads don't always make it in time.
*Requiring organized transport for infantry is a massive barrier to entry for new or casual players who don't roll with outfits.

More transport would make PS2 more tactical... but would also create other issues.


Medics are also marginalized to the point of being only a minor convenience, not the backbone of a successful assault by the spawn system...

Yes!

I don't agree with everything you've said but your argument is sound.


What if:
*Respawn timers were more significant (think redeploy time or maybe 2x that)
*Getting res'd by a medic didn't count as a death (change KDR mechanics)
*(iffy) Other classes could raise their teammates (like the personal health pack in your utility slot... but used resources and could only carry limited number)

I think it would make for more interesting and tactical infantry play.

Obviously these ideas have analogs to other games, but consider the disparity of how careful PPL are with tanks and planes (timers and resources) versus banzai tactics for infantry (virtually no penalty).

[Rothnang]

Well, transport doesn't have to be the only way of getting somewhere, by no means, but if a base could only spawn a limited number of people having half your guys perpetually spawn somewhere else and take a Galaxy to the base would actually make sense...

[Gonefshn]

Don't know about you, but I'm a bit annoyed with the amount of assumptions made here about what 75-90% of the pop would do/want and suggesting that same group of people doesn't care enough to post on forums. I mean... There's no way for you to verify that without doing a survey on it first.



Anyway. "Sitting around" downtime is something that will happen in a game of this type period.

For instance, the problem with waiting at a CC to turn, is that there is no fight. Why is there no fight? Because it takes to sides to fight. Why aren't there two sides? Because one side has next to no incentive to attempt a recapture due to the system and challenges involved being too time consuming with too little support (too great a pressure) to be succesful in most situations. Hence you don't for instance see a last ditch Gal Drop attempt and people give up on attempting a capture, making sitting around at a CC nothing but moot.

Spawning after death of course has a bit different down time. The game forces you to not play as a reward for the person killing you, while you are punished as a consequence. That can be key to gameplay. Yet that can indeed be frustrating. On the other hand, the game could at the very least provide something to do with the downtime. For instance, give people a chance to gain more situational awareness of the continental and global conflict and provide information to base future decisions on.

You could also incentize spawning a bit further away as reinforcements. Of course, if that's too far away, that disrupts the local flow entirely.

All anyone can do is assume. I don't have the means to poll the PS2 community at large. I make assumptions based on what I see and hear in game, what people say online and in reviews and looking at other games and trends. This is what anyone would do.

I think it's a fair guess to say that the population would plummet if players were forced by game mechanics to spend large portions of time out of combat.

Sure lots of people want more depth in the game, but what makes someone come to forums? They express a desire to get more from the game and get deeper into the community. The only games I've been active in forums for are the ones I see more potential in and want to see grow.

Personally I would play a game like the OP talks about. I post devil's advocate all the time on here. I would love to see more depth.

I just don't think a change that drastic would foster the community it would only shrink it down to a niche game like PS1 (niche for different reasons but no less so)

The devs want to reach a large mainstream audience this time, so convenience and instant satisfaction are the name of the game.

How would a change like this affect the gamer who hops on for 30 minutes a day?

[Goldoche]

I have to agree that death is completely meaningless and therefore so is killing.
If I may, a couple of quick thoughts on solutions:
Resource cost to respawn. This can either draw on your infantry resources, a small amount, say 20-30.

Respawns deplete a recharging resource from spawn points and sunderers.
Facilites have 200 units, outposts have 100 units and satellite bases have 75. Sunderers would have 50 units (upgrade-able) (these are all just random numbers really). Every respawn depletes say 5 units and the base generates say 1 unit every few seconds. Sunderers would have to go to a friendly resupply tower to resupply units.


These are just two quick thoughts I had on a possible solution. I hope the idea gets through more so than the specifics.

NTU silos...

[Goldoche]

Replacing the SCU mechanic with respawn tickets that slowly regenerate

NTU SILOS!!!

[Rothnang]

Maybe we should just have hardcore servers where AMSes don't exist and spawn rooms only work if you died in the region they are in. :lol:

[Gonefshn]

Maybe we should just have hardcore servers where AMSes don't exist and spawn rooms only work if you died in the region they are in. :lol:

If Planetside 2 had a huge player base this would be a sweet idea and could totally work despite the lol.

At this point though it would obviously just thin out player numbers in servers.
In a perfect world though I think that would be the best solution.

[Figment]

Btw, I believe they tried the "spawning tickets" with NTU silos refill on bases (not AMSes I think?) in PS1 beta. Weapon swaps and vehicle spawns also took energy.

It wasn't liked as bases turned neutral quite quickly.




Say a base has 300 respawns. I'm not sure how many kills there are in any given base fight, but I'm under the impression it's quite a number per second. Certainly with these one hit kill weapons. Say we have 4 deaths per second for all the defenders at a base. Then in 75 seconds, the spawn tickets are up. >.>

So if we then assume a fight has to last 15 minutes... That's 1125 seconds, a base would require already 4500 tickets to not run out prior to the base being taken. After the base has been taken, it would be incredibly low on tickets so it'd be almost useless for the party who just took it, making them extremely vulnerable to attack.

And how often would people have to make ANT trips?


On an outpost basis, say there's a 20 defenders at an outpost. A fight lasts three minutes before it's taken as is. Do we really need to add tickets and make it easier there? :/ How low would the ticket amount have to be to even make an impact?


Similar questions can be asked for the AMSes. Currently my AMS is often unthreatened for many, many minutes, depending on the fight and the proximity to it. Should it be punished for being placed and defended well?

Wouldn't it be given so many tickets to sustain a bit bigger fight, to not even impact a small fight?

Is it worthwhile to impose arbitrary limits on the amount of people spawning there over time? :/

Wouldn't it cause a lot of frustration to constantly have your spawnpoint drain and having to make back and forth trips of minutes at end? Gonefshn complains about respawn times being increased not being interesting to players who want action action action. So how would this be felt by those players? Having to run back and forth constantly with freshly resupplied AMSes? Wouldn't they feel they're spending too much time on that?

Wouldn't this also hamper the already weak position of defensive AMSes and wouldn't this weaken field positions? >.>

And would this at all make an impact if you can't even fight the people respawning, since there's tanks between you and the objectives and Libs camping the heck out of the CC?



I dunno, I don't have a good feeling about the respawn tickets. Too many buts and ifs.

[Mietz]

I dunno, I don't have a good feeling about the respawn tickets. Too many buts and ifs.

Yeah tickets seem to be not a great idea in this kind of design environment.

How about respawn-timers dependent on facility adjacency and influence?

Cutting off links from a region could be used to strongly weaken an overwhelming force and break stalemates strategically.
Thinking specifically about situations like the crown where the fight goes on forever even though most adjacent hexes have been taken.

On the other hand it could be too much catering to zergzerg and ghostcap gameplay, it would need a closer look, as always, at capture mechanics first.
Also facilities are already really hard to hold as it is so i don't know if we need to make it have diminishing returns as well... :/

EDIT: clarification, when I'm talking about respawn timers being dependent on links, I mean this -region wide- i.e. the attackers underly the same limitations and their AMSes spawn slower.

[Rothnang]

Respawn timer doesn't do anything to create an attrition mechanic, it just annoys people. The whole point is that if you kill a crapload of attackers or defenders they eventually start feeling it, even if you aren't spawncamping them.

[typhaon]

Not sure I dig the title.... cuz I'm not sure PS2 is any more shallow than every single other FPS/MMOFPS that has ever existed...

BUT - I agree... infinite respawning infantry, largely brought about by the infinite ease and availability of sunderers, definitely dumbs down attack/defense combat.

And yes... the suicide mine bombers are another dumb mechanic.

[Gonefshn]

I also want to mention that if this change was implemented it would completely alter and change the meta game, thus making this threads title an oxymoron.

[Babyfark McGeez]

I think we all agree on this, the problem is we don't have proper interiors to bases (tech and amp) which acted as a barrier to enemy spawning PS1. Having that large and intricate interior prevented enemies from spawning right on top of objectives. They had to travel a fair distance through the base to reach any objective. This is why some people are suggesting no deploy zones as you can park an AMS right on top of any objective or camp them with vehicles (as there is next to nothing making up the insides of bases).

I alluded to my next point, the proper interiors we had in PS1 also allowed objectives and spawn tubes to be properly protected (not vehicle camped and deep within the base). Because of this we also had the system where spawn tubes could be physically destroyed as you mentioned, since they were at the heart of the base instead of in a hut outside.

The base design we often refer too made things so much more fun IMO. I am not saying we should have mirror images but the actual interiors did allot for the overall game play. It did wonders actually. PS2 is no where close to producing equivalent fights for me at this point. They arn't fun for me, and I would rather fight in the field. In PS1 i looked forward to both fights. It is a problem if people don't like the fights which are suppose to matter the most.

They actually felt allot more like bases to me as well. Not a single base in PS2 feels like a meaningful objective, just courtyards with huts in them. There is no "this is our fortress now," just "this is our courtyard with an aesthetically pleasing useless structure in the middle."

As I've preached over and over, the burning flag capture system is awful, at least for large bases. There is no excitement to it, its not nearly as intense, and it limits your tactical options. Not to mention it heavily favors numbers. This is another big downfall to base fights and a big reason why death does not matter IMO.

An elite outfit can drop on a force with overwhelming numbers which has flipped the flag. They can break through, reach the flag, drop the enemy force, and then what? They wait for it to slowly tick as the opposing force regroups and floods in, pretty much taking over where they left off.

In PS1 these outfits would be feared, as well as the gal drop. If they broke through, they could cancel the hack removing your progress. This could help your faction in a number of ways. It could simply slow their momentum allowing you to prepare for the assault on the next target. It could give your faction time arrive with back up; or you may even get the tubes up as well during this assault, and you could completely re-secure the base, pushing the enemy out (assuming base design dosen't allow for vehicle camping.) The hack and hold system allowed for much more tactically diverse gameplay, and made living to defend a point (defensively and offensively) very important.

I think they devs did a good job updating the game to more modern fighting mechanics. However I think they strayed to far from the overall game mechanics and base design philosophy which is what made PS1 the game it was. Again, you don't have to make the same bases, but for the love of god make them feel and operate like a proper base, not a typical FPS shooter map. The bases look great and are massive from the outside, but then you walk in you say "oh, just a whole lot of nothing. Actually, not a whole lot, there is nothing to the inside." Huts in a court yard do not constitute a base for me.

I can only wholeheartedly agree with this post. The SOE guys made a good shooter, they just don't really seem to know what to do with it beyond staple "Battlefield" formulas.
That goes from team-deathmatch map design over capturing mechanics all the way to a more deep and immersive gameplay and gameworld.

[bullet]

Yea, some kind of cost attached to respawning that acts as a type of respawn ticket might be a good first step toward allowing strategies that work on killing to be successful, and thereby open up the vast majority of the games mechanics to being the basis for success, as opposed to just window dressing for the same hand full of mechanics. Generators and Sunderers and Control Consoles aren't a bad thing, the problem is that they are the only thing that currently matters.

Just gonna point out PS1 had this. It was called NTUs. I guess thats why they removed it!

[Realmofdarkness]

I agree with OP too. what I would like to see is
1. prolong spawntime alot when you are within enemy hex. this would make more players spawn in nearby friendly bases or sundies in a friendly hex to bring the battle outside.

2. add a new spawn generator that when destroyed would prolong the spawntime for the enemies in that base.

3. is the enemy base doesnt have a direct connection to the warpgate disable instant action on that base. this should also cut off resources gain from players so they eventually would run out of resources.

[Figment]

Just gonna point out PS1 had this. It was called NTUs. I guess thats why they removed it!

Only in beta, it was removed prior to launch. And the only attrition on NTU was damaged base equipment due to base auto-repairs, BFR NTU siphones and drain virals (very late game).

[Mietz]

Respawn timer doesn't do anything to create an attrition mechanic, it just annoys people. The whole point is that if you kill a crapload of attackers or defenders they eventually start feeling it, even if you aren't spawncamping them.

Nothing in a game bar permadeath can create true attrition.

Tickets and longer respawns both do the same thing, prevent people from spawning numerously, this is in its own way an attrition mechanic.

I don't think waiting 2x as long would make me annoyed if the quality of firefights and emotional rewards go up.

Its all a question of balance in the design.

Right now we have quick respawns and fragfest behavior, generally combat is "meh" due to lemming rush behavior. If you make encounters and firefights more enjoyable, higher quality, longer respawns -will- be tolerated.

Its a tested mechanic in other games.
You either provide frequent easy encounters that provide little emotional reward, or you have less frequent encounters that provide challenge.

"Down-time" is like white space in graphics design, you can't be afraid of it else you create noise.

[Rothnang]

Nothing in a game bar permadeath can create true attrition.

Really? I've run with several groups that managed to completely break the back of an enemy tank or air zerg to the point where their numbers went down from 20+ to maybe 3 or 4 at any given point in time. Despite what vehicle haters always claim, the timers and resources do eventually stop people from pulling more vehicles. Pretty quickly even.

This isn't even about denying an enemy the ability to spawn more infantry in general, just denying them the ability to spawn more infantry in a place where they are taking losses at a rate that shouldn't be sustainable.

Downtime isn't the aim, allowing people to adopt a wide variety of strategies that don't just involve sitting on a certain point is the aim. A small group of defenders in a base that is skulking around and assassinating people should have the ability to eventually break the attack if they rarely die. Instead the game always just hands the victory to whoever controls more territory, which is ALWAYS going to be the larger force. All the thousands of creative things you can do to kill enemies never play into who wins or loses.