It is as i feared... no deploy zones.

[Wargrim]

So, SOE chose to take a road with no deploy zones with AMSes that seems to be the must stupid way possible.

Not only does it block attackers from deploying an AMS around a countrol point, which i already find a very stupid move.

But it even blocks DEFENDERS from deploying around a control point THEY OWN.

No defensive Sundie in Tech Plant Center.
No defensive Sundie in Amp station Center.

Hooray. :rolleyes:

Am i the only one who thinks this is going to make it even easyer for an attacking Zerg force to surround spawn buildings and prevent the defenders from doing anything useful? At least we still got the tunnels.

I for my part hope that this decision will be reverted asap, and no - deploy zones get removed again.

[Wahooo]

No defensive Sundie in Tech Plant Center.
No defensive Sundie in Amp station Center.


That is very unfortunate. The point of the argument was the unhappieness that the attackers were able to spawn closer to the point than the defenders. This doesn't really change that it just makes both side run a little ways, but in a lot of places the attackers can still spawn closer while the defenders spawn room is vehicle camped.

*sigh*

I've actually been annoyed at the several design updates that have *fixed* the exploitable areas we could put sundies in Techplants and Amp stations. I wish the devs realized that wasn't breaking the design... or maybe it was, but that it wasn't the exploit that was the problem the base design was flawed and this was the players overcoming that.

[Isokon]

You already said it yourself. The defenders got the tunnels.

[WSNeo]

The devs should have considered the friendly/enemy SOI mechanic when considering no deploy zones. Just sayin'.

[Bocheezu]

It may make it easier for attackers to get to the control point, but it will be harder for them to hold it. When attackers get Sundies in the back of the tech plant or the amp station garage, and idiot defenders repair shield generators, it really makes it difficult to resecure. Hard to say what the overall effect will be until it plays out. Maybe tunnels will actually become useful, who knows.

[Chewy]

It may make it easier for attackers to get to the control point, but it will be harder for them to hold it. When attackers get Sundies in the back of the tech plant or the amp station garage, and idiot defenders repair shield generators, it really makes it difficult to resecure. Hard to say what the overall effect will be until it plays out. Maybe tunnels will actually become useful, who knows.

The tunnels are already useful. I just wish there was a way to get back in them.

The 2nd (2nd? the one that leads to a shed outside of the middle bay) exit in Tech Plants is DAMN good to use. It was always un-watched by attackers and almost no one watched the middle bay. You could back attack either the vehicle bay campers or rear door campers, even could just ignore them both and go for the point.

But for Amp Stations I want to get back in the tunnels so damn bad. Gen to gen and then pop up in the SCU room. Thought would make defending easy if defenders could get to key points fast from each other.

[wasdie]

Good.

Being able to spawn right on a point almost guarantees it's a pure numbers battle. I've never liked the ability to spawn right on top of a point for either the defenders or the attackers.

Defenders have the tunnels and the attackers have to make an effort too stay alive while defending.

[Dragonskin]

The tunnels are already useful. I just wish there was a way to get back in them.

The 2nd (2nd? the one that leads to a shed outside of the middle bay) exit in Tech Plants is DAMN good to use. It was always un-watched by attackers and almost no one watched the middle bay. You could back attack either the vehicle bay campers or rear door campers, even could just ignore them both and go for the point.

But for Amp Stations I want to get back in the tunnels so damn bad. Gen to gen and then pop up in the SCU room. Thought would make defending easy if defenders could get to key points fast from each other.

This is the point of the no deploy zones. They created tunnels so that we could defend better, but no one really uses them because it was easier to get a sunderer to the center and just spawn there to move out. This worked too well for defenders and once attackers could get a sunderer to the center it was game over for the base... in most cases.

Now attackers will have to come from the outside and go in. Defenders can spawn and use tunnels to move around the base far faster than attackers.

Attackers will actually have to work to break the lines and then spread out to stop defenders from using the tunnels instead of just camping the spawn room.

Overall I think it will make defending easier which I think is something the game needs and it will spread out the combat so it's not so much a spawn camp fest.

[bpostal]

No deploy zones shouldn't affect the defending force. At all. Sure tunnels (et cetra), but when the defensive Sunderer is typically parked where the spawn room should have been in the first place...

[Timithos]

This is a shame. It should have been for attackers only.

And I wanted a new generator/console in the facility's plethora of empty buildings to control the AMS no-deploy zone.

What about tunnels everywhere else other then Amp stations and Tech Plants? There are none. Defenders lose again.

I'm getting the feeling that some players only fight at major facilities. How sad.

[PredatorFour]

I think everyone thought no deploy zones would only affect attacker's.... apart from the dev's.

[Isokon]

This is a shame. It should have been for attackers only.

And I wanted a new generator/console in the facility's plethora of empty buildings to control the AMS no-deploy zone.

What about tunnels everywhere else other then Amp stations and Tech Plants? There are none. Defenders lose again.

I'm getting the feeling that some players only fight at major facilities. How sad.
With a few exceptions, I think small outposts don't really benefit that much from defenders putting sunderers near the cap point(s). The distance from the spawn room is relatively short.
The reason defensive sunderers in AMP stations and Tech plants work so well is because the are protected by the shields. Once the shields go down, the sunderer usually follows shortly after.

[SternLX]

... Once the shields go down, the sunderer usually follows shortly after.
This ^^^ Also a growing tactic I have seen recently is a Harasser with shield diffuser popping through with a AV MAX and a Halberd equipped and totally smashing the defenders deploy'd Sundy anyway.

In all honesty, I like this change. Makes for more running battles and doesn't give either side an advantage in AMP Stations or Tech Plants. Small bases... parking a Sundy on the Cap point is the fastest way to loose that Sundy. Especially when Half a Squad or more come running out of the spawn room as heavies with RL's in hand and only one target in mind.

Edit: Oh speaking of Diffuser. I expect we'll see that used more often on Sundy's to get an entire Squad in near the Cap points on Tech plants and Amp stations now.

[Hamma]

I'm willing to give this change a bit of time to see how it affects the game.

[Falcon_br]

Yeah, I also think it is nice.
When I was walking inside one amp station I said, no way we can get this base walking that much!
When I got inside it and saw there was no enemy sunderer I thought:
I am ok with that, if both the defenders and the attackers must walk, it will no longer be a fight where the primary target is the enemy sunderer, if you want to win.
I just want to know how will DVS on Waterson do, since the tactics they use the most to take amp station is galaxy hotdrop, terminal hack, multiple Spawn sunderers inside the point, it is no longer a valid tactic.

[Chewy]

Yeah, I also think it is nice.
When I was walking inside one amp station I said, no way we can get this base walking that much!
When I got inside it and saw there was no enemy sunderer I thought:
I am ok with that, if both the defenders and the attackers must walk, it will no longer be a fight where the primary target is the enemy sunderer, if you want to win.
I just want to know how will DVS on Waterson do, since the tactics they use the most to take amp station is galaxy hotdrop, terminal hack, multiple Spawn sunderers inside the point, it is no longer a valid tactic.

Good question. It's hard as is for NC to get vehicles in place with TR and VS long range AV weapons like the Fracture, Striker, Lancer, and Vortex on top of the standard AV weapons infantry/vehicles have. Why did I choose to be lazy today and not get game time with the update?

How big is the NDZ (no deploy zone)? Does it cover the entire complex, the main building, just from the cap point to spawn, or the normal AMS NDZ pasted over the point? Is there one for each point?

Infantry gameplay shouldn't change much as good outfits mostly work out of a medics ass. The main reason this was such a good tactic was because there was always a mass amount of infantry coming from an AMS in the main buildings. Now that defenders have to spend time in the tunnels or walk like attackers do then I honestly don't know.

So few people use the tunnels and I ALWAYS see AMS camps inside bases. Rarely would I see foot pushes from spawn or more than 2 tunnel attacks and those where just to get an AMS as well.

This is going to have to be a topic for the next meet on Saturday or Monday. Even then I not going to tell some TR scum. You and the spawn that call themselves VS will just have to answer that question on your own.

[Falcon_br]

Well, playing more 2 hours I decided to get galaxies to see the new hotdrop animation.
Dude, it gives me so much nostalgia! OMG, it is awesome to remember ps-1 times!

But the topic here is about NDS, so I got sunderers, and have that impressions:
Attacking AMP stations is better, because the back entrance of the base is still a viable place to deploy your sunderer!
I do think the devs where real lazy when they decided to implement the NDS, all control points projects small bubbles around then that make the NDS area.
This means that in some bases, like the amp station, you can place you sunderer on the side of the generator room, so the defenders must walk an almost open ground to reach you sunderer, where it is well protected from the enemy fire, the enemy also have problems to reach the capture point since they must cross an open kill ground.
There is an easy way for then to kill that sunderer and get vehicles, use the tunnels, the bad news is, nobody uses then unless forced by squad leaders.
My suggestion is still teleporters with simbols over then, do you want to go to the horizontal generator room? get the teleporter with his simbol on it, it will teleport you to the gravitational field of the tunnels, but not force you to go under the base, where it is a labyrinth to most players.
There is also other problems those small bundles brought, some bases you can no longer deploy your sunderer near the teleporter or the jumping pad because they are too close to the capture point, I don´t recall where that happened, but it was strange.
Nott amp station is another base where the bubble is too small to have any real effect other then making the defense more hard, well, I still love to fight on Nott, but since the warpgate rotation it is hard to get there, a friend told me that and I could not confirm it.
But the most useless NDS was on the crown and on tawrich tower, they bubbles don´t make the defenders walk more, or less, and doesn´t change the attacker way of attacking.
Well, I am ok with the currently NDS, but I think it needed more testing before implementing it to the game, the feeling we are playing a beta version of the game to the PlayStation 4 increases with each patch they release.

[Fenrys]

Amp stations need an infantry equipment terminal in the central area . . .

[SternLX]

Nott AMP Station no deploy is NOT working. You can still deploy an AMS Sundie inside the Shielded area. Just found that out the hard way. Pansy NC taking advantage of it.

[Chewy]

Nott AMP Station no deploy is NOT working. You can still deploy an AMS Sundie inside the Shielded area. Just found that out the hard way. Pansy NC taking advantage of it.

Did he take advantage or adapt and over came?

(bad joke I know, but Heartbreak Ridge was a good movie and you walked right into that)

[Falcon_br]

Nott AMP Station no deploy is NOT working. You can still deploy an AMS Sundie inside the Shielded area. Just found that out the hard way. Pansy NC taking advantage of it.

Facility/ Environmental Updates

Sunderer No Deploy Zones
Facilities and Outposts on Indar and Amerish now have Sunderer No Deploy Zones.
These function just like the No Deploy Radius around allied deployed Sunderers
These zones prevent someone from parking a Sunderer right on top of a capture point, forcing players to fight to the capture points on foot

Sorry, it was my bad, there are no NDS on Esamir.

[Dragonskin]

Well, I am ok with the currently NDS, but I think it needed more testing before implementing it to the game, the feeling we are playing a beta version of the game to the PlayStation 4 increases with each patch they release.

In a MMO that is ever evolving you are technically always in beta. The nature of MMOs makes it impossible to have a 100% problem free product anywhere close to launch. You can do as much internal and external testing as you want, but once you have the sheer numbers of full release and new players then you still find tons of issues. New players can help find bugs quicker in some cases because they aren't familiar with the game.

You don't get out of beta until the game is no longer getting steady support which is usually a sign of the game dying and no longer being of interest to the developers. So you can be negative towards the PS4 version coming, but you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

Just my 2 cents.

[MrMak]

Amp stations need an infantry equipment terminal in the central area . . .

That is a very good point. Put it where the SCU shield gen use to be.

[Lonehunter]

No deploy zones shouldn't affect the defending force. At all.

Exactly

[phungus]

I knew this would be the main effect the moment no deploy zones were announced. This was the obvious goal of no deploy zones, the devs want the battle "arenas" to flow how they designed them to; having defenders popping sunderers inside the most defensive point of a base ruined their whole arena base design. I want to see how it plays out, no reason to complain until we see the effect on gameplay (and really everyone here should have been expecting this anyway, the surprise expressed in this thread is downright strange). This may very well end up being a great change.


I do have an important question though, one that cuts to the heart of why I often feel like the devs don't really have a solid grasp of their own game. Since this change has been implemented Do amp Stations and Tech plants have infantry terminals inside the shields by the Tank spawns now?

If not, someone needs to put one there, it's not an option, it's an imperative. Granting access to an infantry terminal in the main defensive and central locations by the tank spawns in the games 2 main battle arenas/bases was really the primary reasons for deploying a sundee in the middle of amp stations and tech plants since the implementation of the tunnels. This really isn't an optional thing either, there must be an infantry terminal in those locations. This can't wait for GU13, an infantry terminal needs to be there now; this is one of those things that not doing it will cause players to quit out of frustration.

I repeat, if it's not there there has to be an infantry terminal placed in those locations where people used to deploy sunderers!

[Timealude]

Do amp Stations and Tech plants have infantry terminals inside the shields by the Tank spawns now?

If not, someone needs to put one there. That was one of the main reasons for deploying a sundee there, especially in the amp station.

the tech plant has always had one within the shields

[phungus]

the tech plant has always had one within the shields

Not by the tank terminals, it's in the center. And yes, tech plants can still get by, but there really should be one in the same area where the tanks spawn - needing to run all the way back to the middle of the base from the tank spawns is non trivial in a battle.

Without a central infantry terminal though inside the shields of the amp stations, the amp stations have become broken in terms of base design and defense. That's not right, it's very wrong in fact.

[Mastachief]

I think everyone thought no deploy zones would only affect attacker's.... apart from the dev's.

Them silly devs.

[kubacheski]

Them silly devs.

Too true. They're forcing the issue of SOI in my opinion. They're not going to go directly to the solution that was used in PS1. I mean they've had 10 years of success in being comletely different from the arena FPS games and when they launched PS2, they designed it with a bunch of little arenas on one continent.

They're overdoing it on the "fix" for NDZ's so that they can implement SOI in a future GU. It's funny how all of the problems that creep up are being solved by PS1 mechanics. You'd figure they'd have leaned something from being the only company with an MMOFPS for over a decade.

I'd almost bet that on one of the next continents released, we'll see more enclosed bases with tunnels and a more defined courtyard, like those of PS1. Hell even if it's just a few of the bases, I'd be curious to see how many people prefer the gameplay of a more "traditional" PlanetSide base configuration.

[Mustarde]

Yesterday on Mattherson there was a big fight at Zurvan. It was held by TR, but the VS were heavy on the point.

BWC loaded up 3 gals and dropped on the roof. Knowing that they couldn't put a sundy in the center room, we breached the point, with maxes, AV grenades and other assorted infantry units. We cleared the point with relative ease and supporting zerg were able to kill the handful of sunderers nearby, in addition to repairing a shield gen. It was the easiest resecure of an amp station that I have ever had, and the fight was very heavy (well over two platoons on each side).

So I'm willing to sit back and see how this plays out, but from what I can see, it makes amp stations VERY easy to defend, now that you can't load the vehicle bay with sunderers.

[SternLX]

Did he take advantage or adapt and over came?

(bad joke I know, but Heartbreak Ridge was a good movie and you walked right into that)
Didn't walk into anything considering I have never seen Heartbreak Ridge.

Also if you have nothing constructive to add keep it to yourself. I don't wanna hear it. Unlike Falcon_br who took the time to point out I missed the part in the Patch notes (that I missed on first read through) that No Deploy is only implemented on Indar and Amerish.

Thank you Falcon_br.

[NewSith]

No-Deploy zones on AMP Stations just allow for AMSes to be placed in proper locations of strategical value. Because all a Friendly AMS inside a V-Bay does is makes it hell of an effort to get anywhere in the courtyard and prevents other AMSes from deploying somewhere more convinient for the spawners.

That's in theory.

[Baneblade]

Come up with more creative places to put the defensive sunderer then. In my experience putting it in the obvious places just means it dies faster.

[Timithos]

Nott AMP Station no deploy is NOT working. You can still deploy an AMS Sundie inside the Shielded area. Just found that out the hard way. Pansy NC taking advantage of it.

Amp Station no-deploy zones are working, it's just that for some reason they placed a small 75-80 meter diameter zone centered between the main spawn room and the capture point. Attackers can deploy their sundy closer to the capture point then the defender's distance from their spawn room :huh:

[Timithos]

So I tried out the no-deploy zones yesterday and today. I was the attacker in my Sundy. I noticed on a few outposts that the zone was off center from the capture point. So I kept reporting it as a bug. Then I realized they did this on purpose by centering the zone midway between the spawn room and the capture point. Mind you that the no-deploy zone on non-major facilities is about 75-80 meters in diameter. What it allowed me to do was deploy my Sundy within 35 meters of the capture points, while the defender's spawn room was 70-100+ meters away. GAME OVER. Attacker wins.

Sunderer's generally are not the vehicles that camp spawn rooms. EVERY ELSE camps spawn rooms, while the sunderer provides a steady stream of infantry to camp the spawn room from a further, safe, concealed distance away. What sunderers more often are doing is getting as close to the capture point as possible, and on the opposite side of the spawn room (At least the intelligent sundy drivers do this.)

The no-deploy zones need to be centered on the capture point. If you really are concerned about this zone surrounding the spawn room, you can make a separate no-deploy zone even.

I'm disappointed that SOE made the no-deploy zones for defenders also. In my opinion this should have been only done for attackers in order to bring some semblance of meaning and defensibility to facility ownership. Defenders have had their advantages stripped away mainly since March mostly in the name of esport/MLG. Hopefully the Nexus will alleviate wrecked base design in the name of esports.

As it stands now, attackers can get their sundies much closer to the capture point at most facilities, even at an Amp Station. Game Over.

[Rivenshield]

It's like we got the old Sphere Of Influence back, but it's designed to fuck the defenders over... :(

[Stardouser]

attacking zerg forces have always been fully supported by short sighted base design...for outposts at least. Large facilities...you tell me, but outposts have always been designed to allow a few tanks or a bunch of infantry to camp the spawn room, and with engineers/vehicle regen, and medics, it's difficult for a small force to even inflict a single loss on the attackers.

[Greenthy]

Our outfit also can not see the clear benefit of having no deploy zones, other than making it very hard to get one in a decent spot. Bases just aren't designed for these no deploy zones. Some bases you can put one behind a building /rock in cover, others you have to leave them out in the open...
(with cover slighly away)

I don't see why we need this though. Breaking a hold on a facility was rewarding either on attacking or defending side with getting an AMS deployed/destroyed.

[Malorn]

For those that missed the hotfix notes a few days ago, the NDZs no longer affect defenders.

[DviddLeff]

Malorn, I presume that tying the no deploy zone to a generator was considered? Any reasons why it was not implemented - personally I think it would add some great depth to the game and more targets for squads.

[raw]

Malorn, I presume that tying the no deploy zone to a generator was considered? Any reasons why it was not implemented - personally I think it would add some great depth to the game and more targets for squads.


Everything should be tied to generators! On a more serious note I don't think that NDZs would make the best generatorable mechanic.

[Zadexin]

Everything should be tied to generators! On a more serious note I don't think that NDZs would make the best generatorable mechanic.

I agree, every defensive benefit should be tied to a generator. There needs to be MORE stuff to attack and defend than 2 generators and 1 point. We have 4 squads to a platoon, there should be at least 4 targets for a large station. And not all of them should be required to take down the facility. Because its still a five minute spawn camp wait after blowing up the SCU.

You could have one for no deploy zone, Have them for all the vehicle shields again (last time I played I could swear they were still missing at Dahaka), Have a generator for the tunnel gravity accelerators. And please god have a generator for the upcoming base shields!

[Malorn]

Malorn, I presume that tying the no deploy zone to a generator was considered? Any reasons why it was not implemented - personally I think it would add some great depth to the game and more targets for squads.

The purpose of the NDZs is to ensure timing between defender spawns and attacker spawns and prevent checkmate moves to capture a base by putting a spawn point directly on top of it or between the defender spawn and the capture point. Distance to travel from a spawn is a force multiplier and NDZs standardize it and give a clear defender advantage (which is why it doesn't affect defenders).

If we give the ability to disable the NDZ then we have three issues.
1) More places for a defender to defend, which makes it harder for them, especially if outnumbered.
2) If the NDZ is dropped, the fight is basically over since the attackers can now magnify their force even more. And if they managed to take out the generator then they probably already have more than the defender.
3) The ability for defenders to recover the situation is severely reduced, as now they not only have to secure the point and remove the AMS, but they must also retake the generator.

It's effectively more win for a winning side and a pure defender disadvantage to do that. By not having them removable we ensure consistency of spawn distance and give defenders better chances against a numerical superior opponent and better chances at recovering.

The fact that defenders can place AMS inside the NDZ means there's more objectives: For the attacker, the objective is kill the defensive AMS. For the defender the objective is to place them. Once those are gone the playing field from a spawn distance standpoint is even. Attackers have flexibility in spawn placement while defenders have the ability to fortify with closer spawns.

Generally speaking all of the NDZs should be roughly the distance from the defender spawn to the objective(s). They are custom to every outpost due to every outpost being different, so we may have some outposts that need tweaking if isn't quite right.

[Mordelicius]

The purpose of the NDZs is to ensure timing between defender spawns and attacker spawns and prevent checkmate moves to capture a base by putting a spawn point directly on top of it or between the defender spawn and the capture point. Distance to travel from a spawn is a force multiplier and NDZs standardize it and give a clear defender advantage (which is why it doesn't affect defenders).

If we give the ability to disable the NDZ then we have three issues.
1) More places for a defender to defend, which makes it harder for them, especially if outnumbered.
2) If the NDZ is dropped, the fight is basically over since the attackers can now magnify their force even more. And if they managed to take out the generator then they probably already have more than the defender.
3) The ability for defenders to recover the situation is severely reduced, as now they not only have to secure the point and remove the AMS, but they must also retake the generator.

It's effectively more win for a winning side and a pure defender disadvantage to do that. By not having them removable we ensure consistency of spawn distance and give defenders better chances against a numerical superior opponent and better chances at recovering.

The fact that defenders can place AMS inside the NDZ means there's more objectives: For the attacker, the objective is kill the defensive AMS. For the defender the objective is to place them. Once those are gone the playing field from a spawn distance standpoint is even. Attackers have flexibility in spawn placement while defenders have the ability to fortify with closer spawns.

Generally speaking all of the NDZs should be roughly the distance from the defender spawn to the objective(s). They are custom to every outpost due to every outpost being different, so we may have some outposts that need tweaking if isn't quite right.

Malorn, thx for posting. There are several problems with this line of logic:

1) There is a sort of false equivalency between the defender spawn and the attacker spawn. The defender spawn is invulnerable and (for the most part), allows players to shoot from within. The attacker spawn is very vulnerable and easy to take out. Hence if it blows, the action stops abruptly severely disrupting the battleflow.

Under a 1:1 combat strength ratio, spawn camping is not really a problem since the attackers have to look out for both the control points and the sunderer spawn, while the defenders only have to concentrate on the control points.

2) Sunderers can't simply be parked out in the open. The primary pressure for sundererer placement is not just proximity to the spawn but getting a good cover. The current base base designs doesn't provide enough of these covers.

If the Sundy has 10x the HP (just saying, not that they should have), then yes, they can be parked out there. But atm, park a Sundy exposed and it will go down so fast.

3) Under a 2:1 attacker:defender ratio, the spawn will be camped regardless, with air and tanks to boot. Just on Ti alloy alone, the south spawn door can be effectively locked down by Prowlers spamming HE from the SW ( I can already hear the Prowler spammers from Waterson chuckling ;))

The issue at hand is more of spawn camping and base design that is conducive to that spawn camping. Hence, trying to solve those with a NDZ is not the applicable approach.

The simplest solution to problems introduced by the NDZ, as we've been discussing before, is tying the generator the NDZ. I don't think the NDZ alleviates spawn camping. Spawn camping happens when attackers have the advantage of air, mechanized and foot soldier numbers (bombarding defending players with stacked DPS as they exit the spawn).

The best solution imo is the Jamming Sunderer. I obviously don't know if that can be implemented or feasible to the Devs but just throwing it out there.

My feedback from another thread:

Post your GU12 feedback.

Here's mine:

GU12 is easily the worst update they've ever concocted. It's pure gameplay interference. The Developer hands are where they shouldn't be. If there is a 4th faction, I'd call this 5th faction interference. Of course I'm talking about the


No Deploy Zone for Sunderer AMS - There are so many things to say about this that I don't know where to really start.

In basketball, I remember there was a 3-second rule where the defender can't camp under the basket if they aren't defending anyone. If they do, the ref will count to 3. If they are still there, they get a warning. Henceforth, on each and every iteration of this violation, the offense gets a freethrow. This No-deploy zone we got is permanent with no counter. You get the idea if that was implemented permanently in basketball.

On top of that, it's also a bad precedent (a tantamount to a slippery slope). The amount of community resistance they received didn't matter (watchout, they are trying to pass off a VS helmet as NS as well). All the reasoning in the world couldn't stop it. All the 2 votes against : 1 vote for ratio didn't count either. Another sad aspect is that they've been pushing this for months and yet they couldn't offer an iota of rationale thrust behind it: not a single word!

It's so bad that looking for the advantages out of it is like looking for the positives, of say, Malaria.

Planetside 2 is about massive combat on an epic scale, we've heard about it and it's all true up to now. This artificial 'mechanic' inhibits the potential of every single fight. I'm gonna fire off one by one the effects of this so far

Medium-Long Range Battles - Most of the fights have now degenerated to medium-long range fights. As i've predicted in previous threads, the defenders already know where the opposition is coming from. All they have to do is point their weapons in the general direction (especially in a tower). And with the base designs (lacking covers) and low TTK, it either bob up and shoot or charge and downright get massacred. And then the sunderer blows up. Which leads us to the next point:

Walk & Wipe - It's not just the size of the No-deploy zone is bad, its' the lack of cover. Sunderers end up in the most awkward places far away from the points. This is especially true in tower fights. Two days ago, we wiped 3 times on the tower, I just logged out in disgust. There's nowhere to put the sunderers: either put it in an exposed building and repair spam or stash it away in a faraway cover.

Anytime we even get close to getting two points, the Sunderers will explode and the whole frontline will collapse in a complete failure cascade (the attacker will then regroup in tedium while the defenders wait in boredom repeating this cycle ad nauseum) Again, this point leads us to:

Shortened Battles - The battles are much shorter now. The long, protracted meatgrinder fights are gone. I call these zones the no-fun zone. No good fights ever come out of it. (I've also read, they are shortening the cap times in PTS, so this probably part of a new PS2 theme).

The other day, the Vanu were so confident they will take Peris amp station during an alert (outnumbering us at least 2:1), that they've been talking trash. They took A point and was sure to capture the base when we got reinforcements. Just like that in one single push, they wiped on A. And as a movie director would say "Cut!", the action stops, almost eerily. We moved to the walls, while they try to push in new sunderers from the tower satellite to no avail, it was already over. It's all easy pickings. The battles are turning to Wack-a-Sundy. This point finally lead us to

Battleflow Disruption - combine all that and you got a very uneven battleflow. Walking, Medium/Long range shoot outs, Sundy hunting/defending, Wiping, regroup tediously. Repeat the short fights cycle.

For a game that prides itself on epic, large-scale battles this is not a step backward but a tumble one floor downward. This limited the gameplay potential by that much. All the creative things event that players do or happen under zone has been restricted. Remember the suicide Sundies (storming in out of nowhere) that has about 15% chance of sticking/deploaying under heavy fire, you won't see that anymore. All the unpredictable stuff that can happen, an anything goes feeling is gone. And it's as predicted on my previous posts about this. All those potential, exciting things that can happen without the No-deploy zone are all gone.

The Developers should be giving us tools to fight each other. Not unnecessary, unwanted, unrewarding mechanics that restricts us from fighting, by limiting combat scenarios. I honestly don't believe the Developers play their own game enough. If they did, they won't even consider implementing this, much less bulldoze it through much community resistance (They ought to just discontinue the Roadmap program. It's just a source of pain for both sides. It promulgates lofty expectations, and player feedback over there are worthless and wasted when they simply overrule on a whim).

They could have given us Jamming Sunderers that actually do the same thing but actually can be interacted with by the players while giving the clashes more depth.

MLG related? - I've thought and thought what could be the driving force behind this. Initially, I figured it was to prevent spawn camping. But then again, in an even 1:1 fight, the attacker is disadvantaged because, defense spawn point is invulnerable and players can shoot out of it, while a Sundy/Spawn beacon can easily be destroyed. In a 2:1 fight, will it make much of a difference? No, the current base designs naturally conduce spawn camping, so it's unavoidable.

So what could it be the reasoning behind this? Since, the Developers have been mum about it for months and from the beginning, and basically offering nothing (I know they will say 'they don't have to'. Fine), i'll just go and guess then.

The closest thing I've come up is that this is MLG related. I'm really anxious to see the Battle Islands. First thing, i'll do is get a Sunderer and check all the no-deploy zones and check if it's perfectly calibrated to the surroundings and base designs. In a 48 vs 48 with many bases, i'd imagine a Sunderer parked too close will be advantageous to the attacker. There would be a shortage of players and there won't be enough DPS to take it down. Whereas in the live, continental servers, there is a much higher player limit, and DPS isn't an issue.

As a final summary this no-deploy 'mechanic' is a self-inflicted wound for PS2. They've literally garroted their own advantages and what separates them from the pack.

Some posts about the No Deploy Zones before it was rammed through with poor consideration:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=55611&page=2
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=55611&page=4
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=53073

[Baneblade]

The purpose of the NDZs is to ensure timing between defender spawns and attacker spawns and prevent checkmate moves to capture a base by putting a spawn point directly on top of it or between the defender spawn and the capture point. Distance to travel from a spawn is a force multiplier and NDZs standardize it and give a clear defender advantage (which is why it doesn't affect defenders).

If we give the ability to disable the NDZ then we have three issues.
1) More places for a defender to defend, which makes it harder for them, especially if outnumbered.
2) If the NDZ is dropped, the fight is basically over since the attackers can now magnify their force even more. And if they managed to take out the generator then they probably already have more than the defender.
3) The ability for defenders to recover the situation is severely reduced, as now they not only have to secure the point and remove the AMS, but they must also retake the generator.

It's effectively more win for a winning side and a pure defender disadvantage to do that. By not having them removable we ensure consistency of spawn distance and give defenders better chances against a numerical superior opponent and better chances at recovering.

The fact that defenders can place AMS inside the NDZ means there's more objectives: For the attacker, the objective is kill the defensive AMS. For the defender the objective is to place them. Once those are gone the playing field from a spawn distance standpoint is even. Attackers have flexibility in spawn placement while defenders have the ability to fortify with closer spawns.

Generally speaking all of the NDZs should be roughly the distance from the defender spawn to the objective(s). They are custom to every outpost due to every outpost being different, so we may have some outposts that need tweaking if isn't quite right.

Why is increasing the spawn time on Sunderers not on the table?

[Stardouser]

Why is increasing the spawn time on Sunderers not on the table?

Increasing spawn timers for both attackers and defenders, at both fixed and Sunderers, should be on the table. Obviously there are ways to do this such as a multiple SCU approach (taking down 1 or 2 SCU increases spawn timer, all 3 shuts it off).

Or, deploying 1 sunderer in a certain radius is a 30 second respawn, 5 makes the respawn as short as it is now.

[Jax Blake]

The purpose of the NDZs is to ensure timing between defender spawns and attacker spawns and prevent checkmate moves to capture a base by putting a spawn point directly on top of it or between the defender spawn and the capture point. Distance to travel from a spawn is a force multiplier and NDZs standardize it and give a clear defender advantage (which is why it doesn't affect defenders).

If we give the ability to disable the NDZ then we have three issues.
1) More places for a defender to defend, which makes it harder for them, especially if outnumbered.
2) If the NDZ is dropped, the fight is basically over since the attackers can now magnify their force even more. And if they managed to take out the generator then they probably already have more than the defender.
3) The ability for defenders to recover the situation is severely reduced, as now they not only have to secure the point and remove the AMS, but they must also retake the generator.

It's effectively more win for a winning side and a pure defender disadvantage to do that. By not having them removable we ensure consistency of spawn distance and give defenders better chances against a numerical superior opponent and better chances at recovering.

The fact that defenders can place AMS inside the NDZ means there's more objectives: For the attacker, the objective is kill the defensive AMS. For the defender the objective is to place them. Once those are gone the playing field from a spawn distance standpoint is even. Attackers have flexibility in spawn placement while defenders have the ability to fortify with closer spawns.

Generally speaking all of the NDZs should be roughly the distance from the defender spawn to the objective(s). They are custom to every outpost due to every outpost being different, so we may have some outposts that need tweaking if isn't quite right.

One of the major problems that I have with NDZ is that you have completely removed an attack strategy from the game. What is the purpose of the GSD sunderer now? The harasser I can understand as it gets you inside and allows you to farm infantry but the sunderer is useless.

If you rush to a base in order to hack out a sunderer what do you do then? You pull the sunderer outside the safety of walls and place it where? If that sunderer you have moved away from the vehicle spawn point dies how do you pull another one? Odds are your forces guarding the vehicle spawn are dead which often times includes the capture point, or you hold the vehicle spawn but can't keep a sunderer alive because you're forced to move it so far away from where the bulk of your forces are trying to hold the capture point and it's out in the open.

How do you attack an amp station without superior numbers? At times the game already feels like a zerg fest and you've made it so that you HAVE to have superior numbers in order to take a facility. Previously you could have a Sunderer up inside of a tech plant or amp station and still fail on your attack if you didn't protect them. Now you take the inside of an amp station and because your sunderer can no longer be placed inside your reinforcements are forced to run from greater distances than the defenders from their spawn room. It will always be a greater distance because there is no place you can safely put a sunderer near the capture point that will allow your reinforcements to get there in time. You can only rely on spawn beacons / medics / squad deployments for so long. Just this weekend I was in a platoon that tried to assault an amp station only to fail because the numbers grew to the point that it was impossible to defend without a sunderer on the inside. Is the only strategy to bring more people than them?

The way things are it feels like the goal is not to attack and defend your place on the capture point but to attack and camp the defenders into the spawn point so that the defenders can't get out. If these biodomes comes in it forces attackers to bring in even more numbers since you can no longer use combined arms, air will not be able to suppress and these massive walls on esamir means that armor can't suppress either (for the record I love the esamir changes.)

I also have to ask about why base timers are being changed again? The zergs already move strong and shorter timers do nothing but encourage more of that gameplay, the more people you have together the quicker you can get through all the bases and all that wonderful capture xp that zergs seem to enjoy. I shudder to think about what the TR Connery outfits are going to do with 7min timers on major bases and I think an even shorter one on biolabs.

[Wargrim]

Not having the no deploy zone stop the placement of defensive sundies is a good change / fix. At least now the system should work to the benefit of the defenders. But i still believe that it is too artificial, and not a good system. The new, promising looking defensible base designs for Esamir seem to be a much more natural and fitting approach.

[SternLX]

One of the major problems that I have with NDZ is that you have completely removed an attack strategy from the game. What is the purpose of the GSD sunderer now? The harasser I can understand as it gets you inside and allows you to farm infantry but the sunderer is useless.
.. snipped

The GSD sundy tactic is still a valid one. We kept doing it to NC on Connery a couple nights ago at an Amp station. Drop off nearly a whole squad in there with half of them MAXs with the rest being a mix of Engy's and medics and you clean it out right quick. Mean while Sundy driver was making a trip to get more people.

I've taken to Tank mining just behind the shield in amp stations because I have seen a lot more use of GSD as of late.

[Livefire]

I think the no deploy zones need to be removed immediately, this is a fundamental interruption in game play strategy that was designed by the players for the players. Players want a sand box battle field that we can figure out what works and what does not, we do not like restrictions on what we can and can not do with are vehicles and weapons. Design a base and then give us are space to figure out how to make it work. Do not make random restrictions that make no sense like this vehicle "magically can not deploy here". We do not want are battles and strategy's guided by game Devs.

[Shooter]

Unfortunately bases have not been designed for NDZ's (and removing them for defenders and other fixes suggested here are changes to suit a bad idea and will only cause further problems).

Tired of having to park the sundie in the open when attacking, only to have it blown up by a lib, or whatever, as soon as I have run half-way to the objective.

If NDZ's suit MLG play keep them for the Battle Islands.
They aren't a solution to indefensible bases.

Mordelicius has nailed it in his post I HOPE THE DEVS HAVE READ AND RE-READ IT at least a couple of times!

Also agree with Greenthy and many other posters here about how NDZ's are just wrong wrong wrong!

So you want to adapt the game to suit MLG... fine... save the changes for the Battle Islands.

[Zidaya]

The purpose of the NDZs is to ensure timing between defender spawns and attacker spawns and prevent checkmate moves to capture a base by putting a spawn point directly on top of it or between the defender spawn and the capture point. Distance to travel from a spawn is a force multiplier and NDZs standardize it and give a clear defender advantage (which is why it doesn't affect defenders).

If we give the ability to disable the NDZ then we have three issues.
1) More places for a defender to defend, which makes it harder for them, especially if outnumbered.
2) If the NDZ is dropped, the fight is basically over since the attackers can now magnify their force even more. And if they managed to take out the generator then they probably already have more than the defender.
3) The ability for defenders to recover the situation is severely reduced, as now they not only have to secure the point and remove the AMS, but they must also retake the generator.

It's effectively more win for a winning side and a pure defender disadvantage to do that. By not having them removable we ensure consistency of spawn distance and give defenders better chances against a numerical superior opponent and better chances at recovering.

The fact that defenders can place AMS inside the NDZ means there's more objectives: For the attacker, the objective is kill the defensive AMS. For the defender the objective is to place them. Once those are gone the playing field from a spawn distance standpoint is even. Attackers have flexibility in spawn placement while defenders have the ability to fortify with closer spawns.

Generally speaking all of the NDZs should be roughly the distance from the defender spawn to the objective(s). They are custom to every outpost due to every outpost being different, so we may have some outposts that need tweaking if isn't quite right.

I like the idea behind NDZ but I think the main issue lays with the lack of cover for sundys.

Perhaps a key spot for the return of the cloak bubble.

[Baneblade]

Tired of having to park the sundie in the open when attacking, only to have it blown up by a lib, or whatever, as soon as I have run half-way to the objective.

Then why don't you stay and defend it?

[SerethiX]

I think the problem is, you often don't have enough warriors to defend the control points AND the sunderer, that gets as much attention as the control points

SerethiX - www.serethi.de

[Baneblade]

Sunderers only really need one or two dedicated defenders for most scenarios. Rarely is there a concentrated assault on a Sunderer. Two people can easily dispatch most of the threats to a Sunderer and keep it repaired under fire. Now if two isn't sufficient, you are going to lose it anyway. I tend to guard my Sunderers solo and I do kill a lot of would be Sunderer killers. It might blow up eventually, but for each person you killed trying to kill it, that is one less Sunderer to worry about replacing.

[NewSith]

Sunderers only really need one or two dedicated defenders for most scenarios. Rarely is there a concentrated assault on a Sunderer. Two people can easily dispatch most of the threats to a Sunderer and keep it repaired under fire. Now if two isn't sufficient, you are going to lose it anyway. I tend to guard my Sunderers solo and I do kill a lot of would be Sunderer killers. It might blow up eventually, but for each person you killed trying to kill it, that is one less Sunderer to worry about replacing.

I kinda miss the cloak bubble and the ability to place more than 2 mines around it. In PS2 you're basically bound to your AMS and that's not exactly action-packed.

Also I think I finally realised that Mineguard is OP in a way that AT mines shouldn't be able to kill a mineguardless Sunderer. Otherwise mineguard is a musthave cert for an AMS which is stupid.

[Baneblade]

Well, in the big fights, you will see plenty of action.

[Mordelicius]

War Report #16

Axeltoss and Jax on Sunderer placement. Check 41m 10s in.

Freelancers Union vs Consortium and Heavy Metal Marines - War Report Episode 16 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPLCWm392xc#t=41m10s)

Jax quote: "Why are they deploying their Sundies on such an open area??"

And another on 38m 30s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPLCWm392xc#t=38m30s

And another on 44m 50s. They eventually parked one so far away for the sake of cover....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPLCWm392xc#t=44m50s

Watch the these clips of Sunderers blowing one after the other. They explode so fast, how are even NDZs a necessity?

[SerethiX]

Watch the these clips of Sunderers blowing one after the other. They explode so fast, how are even NDZs a necessity?

We need them, cause if you are out numbered and the enemy got a spawn sunderer next to a control point, you almost have no chance.

Have you read any of the posts in this thread?

I think, ndz's could be improved, so they match the attacker/defender rating.

Let's say we have 12/6, then the ndz is 2 times bigger than normal. And the sunderer needs to park in a greater distance.

On 6/12 the sunderer can park closer to the points.

When you park your sunderer while having 1/30 and then the ratio changes to 12/12 and you parked inside the ndz, the spawn time at the sunderer is set to a higher level, like spawn beacons. In this case you might be able to spawn again, but you'll always try to get the sunderer out of the ndz.

If we have 48+/48+ i would like to see a ndz that covers the whole base and the surrounding area, so it is a fight of strategy and not who can park a sunderer better than the other.

My five cents

SerethiX - www.serethi.de

[Baneblade]

Frankly, if NDZ is getting your Sunderers killed, you need better placement, defense, planning, or all three.

[Osskscosco]

It is as i feared... nobody cares!

[Micro]

It is as i feared... nobody cares!

Well apparently a bunch of people do. And posts like that are just not needed.
Please make a constructive/meaningful contribution next time. Thank you.