Cont Lock finally? [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

Obstruction

2014-05-23, 02:10 AM

i still don't get how it's supposed to help the game.

i mean they had to ruin the crown to stop people from only playing at the crown, right? then they had to create the entire conceit of Alerts from whole cloth just to get people play a map other than Indar. and even now when pop gets low you have to play on Indar, because everyone plays on Indar - because everyone plays on Indar.

so now the idea is to lock off the alternative places to play? so the empty continents get captured and closed off for play, and everyone fights over Indar with the supposed goal of gaining them back? except you can't ever push people out of an Indar warpgate because the lattice funnels all the players into three 100 v 100 lag pits.

also what is the benefit of controlling a whole continent that is locked away? one side gets 1000 resources to use on the other continents while the poor get poorer in the only place left to fight?

i just don't see this being the magical solution to the myriad design flaws in the overall system. as it stands, the game is playable, even fun, if you don't try to take the territory game too seriously. the flaws are there, but you can play around them and have a nice time of it.

i will stay open minded to change, and even look forward to many of the planned redesigns, including the resource system. i am just very concerned about enshrining the very worst aspect of gameplay (territory control) and decreasing available area to play in. if anything i'd think we want more options and not less.

but then again i liked the freedom and unpredictability of the hex system, and felt that there were many other things contributing to the basic problems blindly scapegoated on hex that (surprise!) still persist today. and i have been repeatedly shit on for that opinion, so i don't really expect much difference with this.

ringring

2014-05-23, 05:29 AM

STOMPIE

2014-05-23, 08:42 AM

ringring

2014-05-23, 12:29 PM

Instead of continent locking, why dont they just restrict the faction that has more than 33% (a predetermined % would be in place. Say 40%) from attacking on that server on that map. They could
still defend their territory but couldnt take anymore since they would have reached the maximum % allowed. This way all continents dont have to be locked and everyone has something to play towards on every continent in every server...

thats my inexperienced thoughts. Just wanted to add to the thread. Just an idea in the end as im sure we all want a good experience.

That's not the idea, ie that every factino has something to fight on every cont. The purpose of continent locking (which is a term that doesn't describe what it actually is) is supposed to be a reason to fight and give each empire an overall aim. Either to dominate the entire world or to be dominated.

The big problem is that it cannot work with 3 or every four continents. It takes 7 minimum and 9 or 10 ideally. (ps1 had 10) The reason why we don't have it is that SOE finds continent creation very time consuming. At launch we were expecting 2 conts per year and we're way way below that, dev time is mostly spent on keeping the current game running and adding sweeties like new guns to the store.

Azzzz

2014-05-23, 06:13 PM

Regarding one faction have a shit ton of resources, isn't the new resource vamp supposed to fix that?

Then again we really wont know until they (if/when) put it out and we can fully gauge it's functionality.

Edfishy

2014-05-23, 06:34 PM

...The reason why we don't have it is that SOE finds continent creation very time consuming. At launch we were expecting 2 conts per year and we're way way below that, dev time is mostly spent on keeping the current game running and adding sweeties like new guns to the store.

Ever watch the dev streams when they're designing a base? 90% of the time sink can be found right there.

They're already stretched thin for resources, but a player studio for designing bases would probably resolve a majority of the problem. Even if player-designed bases needed touch up work or need to be moved across continents, a player studio contribution would still eliminate a huge portion of the time wasted by paid SOE employees.

Edfishy

2014-05-23, 06:49 PM

double post, please delete :evil:

Sarloh

2014-05-24, 12:23 PM

Well, if they've started doing it at an accelerated pace earlier it would be here by now. I've been waiting for this feature for 1.5 years now. The gameplay and it's goals need new content, weapons and cosmetics are OK but if we look at it; we've been doing the same thing for 1.5 years now!
This post was very influenced by a video from (I believe) Wrel.

At least they've finished the implant system and they will hopefully get to some much more needed work now.

bpostal

2014-05-24, 01:02 PM

No this is not continent locking as described on the roadmap. This is literally continent locking, ie if you capture a continent it is closed. It will be launched when Hossin is ready.

It is a step along the way to the proper intercontinental lattice but that requires 3 battle island minimum and no work has been done on them for ages.

This from Higby on Reachcast Q and A.

Intercontinental lattice is what I'm really excited for. I'm hoping that they'll just put Nexus in where appropriate instead of waiting on the other three battle islands.

Obstruction

2014-05-24, 08:01 PM

i still don't get why we want less places to fight.

bpostal

2014-05-24, 10:54 PM

i still don't get why we want less places to fight.

It's going to be needed when (don't laugh) we get more continents. It also adds a sense of ownership and a goal for players to strive for.

Mordelicius

2014-05-25, 01:33 AM

They can't rush this by any means. Look at how much destruction WDS preseason 2 has caused in such a small time period. This is system mechanics is even more ingrained.

It's not just an event but will be built-into the map itself. I hope they send out previews (in great detail) of what they are planning so it can be critiqued for any flaws, large or superficial.

Lastly, it can't be half-measures like what they've done with the No-Deploy Zone, Amp Station/Tech Tunnels, WDS Preseasons, Amerish Lattice etc. A lot of these ideas are underdeveloped, unstructured, incomplete or just plain misguided.

Sarloh

2014-05-25, 05:18 PM

Like what I believe a developer said: ''They'll forgive you for being late but not for being bad.'' So let them take their time and make it good (if they are ever going to make it anyway).

Illtempered

2014-05-26, 02:41 PM

Given their track record, my prediction is that it will be half-baked, prematurely shoved into the game, and poorly implemented/executed. Then they'll leave it in, even though it's broken, so they can tell their bosses they're doing something useful.

Obstruction

2014-05-27, 11:15 PM

It's going to be needed when (don't laugh) we get more continents. It also adds a sense of ownership and a goal for players to strive for.

definitely lol'd. and i still don't get it.

is it possible that people just want this mechanic shoehorned into Planetside 2 to satisfy nostalgia for Planetside?

if they put this in as it is being described they will have to redesign or remove many other systems, including large systems such as resources and alerts. i just don't see that happening. they can't even fix half the bugs in the game 18 months after release, or half of the ones introduced in the last 18 months along with their half assed attempts to address core gameplay issues.

in fact, i suspect that Continent Locking was nothing more than a half assed attempt to address a core gameplay issue that existed in Planetside, analogous to the Alert system in Planetside 2. and if so, it would be quite ironic that veteran players pine for it while decrying Alerts and No Deploy Zones, etc.

Azzzz

2014-05-28, 04:35 AM

Whats interesting about No Deploy Zones is...not one person asked for them yet they implemented it anyways.

Then again that seems to be their MO, implement shit no one wants or if they do add something that people want, it's usually half-assed or mind boggling retarded.

I haven't played PS1 but from what I get from everyone else that has, it worked, in many ways. It had everything most people wanted (BFRs excluded) or something that added a tactical aspect such as cont lock but had ew graphics.

Now why can't PS2 have the same shit as PS1 but look way better? Is this such a difficult task to execute?

ringring

2014-05-28, 05:30 AM

definitely lol'd. and i still don't get it.

is it possible that people just want this mechanic shoehorned into Planetside 2 to satisfy nostalgia for Planetside?

if they put this in as it is being described they will have to redesign or remove many other systems, including large systems such as resources and alerts. i just don't see that happening. they can't even fix half the bugs in the game 18 months after release, or half of the ones introduced in the last 18 months along with their half assed attempts to address core gameplay issues.

in fact, i suspect that Continent Locking was nothing more than a half assed attempt to address a core gameplay issue that existed in Planetside, analogous to the Alert system in Planetside 2. and if so, it would be quite ironic that veteran players pine for it while decrying Alerts and No Deploy Zones, etc.

No cont locking was not 'half-assed' as you say. It was very important and it drove the entire game.

Alerts do fine for what they are and are the most interesting part of the game as it is. But they have a big flaw. That flaw is the reward to the winner. If you want the reward (and PS2 is built on xp gain as the motivation) then you have to be on the winning side to benefit most and the result of that is population swings.

This was obvious from launch on Miller. TR population jumped as events started and grew throughout. TR therefore won the alert often with dominating victories which then in turn reinforced the impression that TR will most often win alerts.

Back in ps1 we did have alerts of a kind and different to those in ps2, but when they occurred we normally decried them because they were a distraction from the main event, ie 'the war'.

JackD

2014-05-29, 05:17 AM

That's not the idea, ie that every factino has something to fight on every cont. The purpose of continent locking (which is a term that doesn't describe what it actually is) is supposed to be a reason to fight and give each empire an overall aim. Either to dominate the entire world or to be dominated.

The big problem is that it cannot work with 3 or every four continents. It takes 7 minimum and 9 or 10 ideally. (ps1 had 10) The reason why we don't have it is that SOE finds continent creation very time consuming. At launch we were expecting 2 conts per year and we're way way below that, dev time is mostly spent on keeping the current game running and adding sweeties like new guns to the store.

To be fair, Esamir, Indar and Amerish got all redesigned. So we got three "new" continents but they are just more like Amerish 2.0 etc. the setting is still the same which makes it a bit dull after 1,5 years. And the lattice on Amerish lacks, all the big fights happend around the Ascend but not at it.

Vanir

2014-05-30, 02:06 PM

http://www.soe.com/images/community/features/continental-lattice-concept.jpg

ringring

2014-05-30, 02:58 PM

http://www.soe.com/images/community/features/continental-lattice-concept.jpg

Yea but, two of those three battle islands don't exist and even the first hasn't been looked at for a year.

If by posting that you're meaning that is what we're going to get next month it isn't, we're getting a very much simpler version and even that was pretty simple compared to ps1.

Vanir

2014-05-30, 03:17 PM

Yea but, two of those three battle islands don't exist and even the first hasn't been looked at for a year.

If by posting that you're meaning that is what we're going to get next month it isn't, we're getting a very much simpler version and even that was pretty simple compared to ps1.

Oh I know, the one we will probably be getting will be this but minus the battle islands and just have all the continents connect directly to each other.

ringring

2014-05-30, 04:25 PM

Oh I know, the one we will probably be getting will be this but minus the battle islands and just have all the continents connect directly to each other.

Not according to Higby in the Reachcast broadcast he did.

Hossin will be added but there will be no lattice.
It appears that only three continents will be open at any one time and when one of those is captured that one will close the the one previously locked will open.
There will be an event of some kind triggered when a cont is about to be captured.

At least that is what I took from what he said.

Lattice and the BI's will come along later and working warpgates later still.

Muldoon

2014-05-30, 06:15 PM

Whats interesting about No Deploy Zones is...not one person asked for them yet they implemented it anyways.

It would be severely limiting if we only implemented things that people asked for. Personally I think No Deploy Zones were a positive change.

ChipMHazard

2014-05-30, 08:33 PM

It's also not true that no one asked for something to fix sundies being everywhere at and inside bases. Devs saw the problem and fixed it the best way they could.

Azzzz

2014-05-30, 09:05 PM

It would be severely limiting if we only implemented things that people asked for. Personally I think No Deploy Zones were a positive change.

Apologizes then. I was going off what I generally hear from in game. Seems there was more negative comments towards it than positive. And I was more so referring to the no squad deploy inside bases instead of sundies but then I should have more so stated it more clearly.

Mordelicius

2014-05-31, 04:26 AM

It would be severely limiting if we only implemented things that people asked for. Personally I think No Deploy Zones were a positive change.

So far there's only one official reason why it was implemented: to make Attacker and Defender spawn equidistant to the cap point. And that's something that can be easily debunked as false equivalency (a logical fallacy).

The reason being is that attacker Sundy spawn can be blown up while defensive spawn is indestructible. Hence, attackers have to apply extra players to the Sunderer so it won't simply be blown up.

If the developers were simply worried about parking Sundies right next to the cap point, they could have easily adjusted the radius to around 10-20 feet. Instead, they had to make it large, again, to satisty the equidistance argument.

The negatives far outweigh the positive. The NDZ has been voted down at least 2:1 at the official forum (2000+ against vs. 1000 yeas). This mechanic restricts gameplay while reducing the unpredictability of game (a hallmark of PS2 up to that point). I made so many posts on how toxic NDZ is to gameplay (even before they finally decided to implement it).

Also, this is more of a philosophic battle about how PS2 should run more than anything.

"For NDZ": Developers should have tighter controls of mechanics leaving less decision to players. Something that I accurately predicted as a slippery slope. Since NDZ was implemented, they also disallowed players from dropping mines on Vehicle pads and mines on infantry jump pads.

Again, rather than letting players clear the mines themselves(which shouldn't take more than 5 seconds on most bases), the developers feel it's their role to be an invisible guardian.

All this does is make pvp stale. A player blowing up in vehicle pad is that player's fault because the pad wasn't checked for mines. In a middle of a fierce, contested Tech Plant fight, mines on the vehicle pads can mean a loss or a victory.

Instead, if you ask the PS2 developers, that meta fight for the vehicle pad shouldn't be even part of gameplay :doh:. This is one of multitudes of reason why I often say that the PS2 devs don't even play PS2. Alot of gameplay, meta and balance context is foreign to them.

"Against NDZ": Hands off. Let the players decide and fight it out. This is the type of philosophy the new SOE game, H1Z1 foster. When somebody asked Smedley if there will be a safezone, he answered "what is a safezone", meaning it won't be implemented. In, short they are letting players decide the gameplay.

Is it a suprise to anyone why that type of Laissez Faire gameplay is what makes games like H1Z1 very popular?

In PS2, they operate in another direction, there's too much gameplay interferance mechanics that the Devs sprinkle inside the game.

Instead, they should just give players more tools. A Spawn Jamming Sunderer would have sufficed, rather than a No Deplay Zone. Deploy a Spawn jamming sunderer. Any enemy sunderer caught within the AOE radius cannot spawn players. That would have been a much better alternative. And that's something that have been suggested way before they implemented the NDZ.

One of my many, many posts about the NDZ (this one after it was implemented): http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=55971

Related: Suggested fixes to Spawn Camping/ Sunderer Wipes: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=56877

Muldoon

2014-05-31, 10:00 PM

All this does is make pvp stale. A player blowing up in vehicle pad is that player's fault because the pad wasn't checked for mines. In a middle of a fierce, contested Tech Plant fight, mines on the vehicle pads can mean a loss or a victory.

Personally I disagree with a lot of your post, but this was the biggest one I disagreed with. There are lots of new players playing Planetside each day, and are learning how to play. The game is already really hard to learn, and having a new player blow up on a vehicle pad is a quick way to getting them to uninstall. Without new players, the game dies.

Call it hand holding or what have you, being able to place mines on the vehicle pad is one of the cheapest things you could do and added very little to the game.

bpostal

2014-06-01, 12:15 AM

...There are lots of new players playing Planetside each day, and are learning how to play. The game is already really hard to learn, ...

At the risk of going off topic, while I may complain (a lot) this is one of the reasons I'm not as angry as I would otherwise be when it's mention that Planetside had much more depth. Especially with the latest free release of Planetside it's become obvious that the game isn't new player friendly.

As more and more mechanics are added to PS2, such as the intercontinental lattice and cont locking, the game must remain easy to get into. Of course, these same mechanics need to provide the depth, the meat, that veteran players need to keep us engaged.

BlaxicanX

2014-06-01, 02:30 AM

My heart is torn on the argument regarding casualiziation of the game. On the one hand, the ambitious gamer in me says that people need to nut-up and learn how to play the fucking; I jumped into Planetside 2 in 2012, when the game was merciless toward new players, yet here I still am.

On the other hand, I am the only person out of my entire circle of friends who plays it. By their own, personal admissions, the game was too frustrating for them. Even as attackers, they felt like they couldn't go two steps without getting killed by a thousand different things.

So idk. The complexity of the game definitely needs to be toned down, I suppose. Not sure how to go about doing that without sacrificing the depth, though.

ringring

2014-06-01, 05:45 AM

Edfishy

2014-06-01, 11:55 AM

It's not something that I worry over particularly although I would agree. The game is hard for new players. I have some of friends who were really good ps1 players and found it hard to get into ps2. Actually a lot of my old ps1 friends and colleagues gave ps2 a try and gave up pretty quick.

Anyway, if someone says 'it's like this to make it easy for new players' I'll generally be supportive.

It can't be done now, but I personally think they should split the game into two player types: Grunts, and Elites.

Using Titanfall as a model, you essentially have the Grunt/Pilot dynamic. Grunts play to jump between zergs and have less clutter to deal with, meanwhile Elites are the players playing for tactics, working in outfits and determining the shape of engagements.

bpostal

2014-06-01, 05:14 PM

It can't be done now, but I personally think they should split the game into two player types: Grunts, and Elites.

Using Titanfall as a model, you essentially have the Grunt/Pilot dynamic. Grunts play to jump between zergs and have less clutter to deal with, meanwhile Elites are the players playing for tactics, working in outfits and determining the shape of engagements.

The playerbase should NEVER be divided.

Mordelicius

2014-06-02, 12:21 AM

Personally I disagree with a lot of your post, but this was the biggest one I disagreed with. There are lots of new players playing Planetside each day, and are learning how to play. The game is already really hard to learn, and having a new player blow up on a vehicle pad is a quick way to getting them to uninstall. Without new players, the game dies.

Call it hand holding or what have you, being able to place mines on the vehicle pad is one of the cheapest things you could do and added very little to the game.

I don't recall using the term holding hands, nor it's in that spirit lol.

Think of another game, say, basketball. A referee would draw random circles on the ground where offense can't step on. After watching the offense dance around like clown just to get off a shot, the ball changes hands and now it's the other team to do it on the other side.

Now, would I call that 'holding hands'? Would you call it holding hands? My guess, no. What I would call it is gameplay degradation, increased predictability, messed up flow, unnecessary rules and overall an overreach by the officials.

Now, back to Planetside 2. The No Deploy Zone does the same. Anything and everything that can happen when a basketball player steps on the circle will NEVER happen because it is prohibited. Anything and everything that can happen when a Sunderer parks in that zone will never happen because it is prohibited.

So, If I drive a Sunderer in a risky desperation move to park and nail it on a side of a wall, under fire inside NDZ will never happen. And any and all chain of events happening as a result will never happen EVER! That's my point about reducing gameplay variety and unpredictability.

It's a simple rule of reciprocity. Defenders are allowed to park Sundies, hence offense should be allowed to park. Defenders use shotguns, offense is allowed shotguns, etc etc.

Secondly, about the mines on the vehicle pad (and I understand how important the newbies are). I believe there are far worse things in PS2 than that and most of them involve gameplay balance. It's something we've been warning the Devs since the beginning. Example: (Dec. 17, 2012 http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=868000#post868000)

Faction balance first before promotions.

Gameplay balance first before promotions.

They may lure in alot of new players but all these imbalances will simply enfuriate them.

Faction balance - Overpowered Vanu camps Esamir so they can spam overpowered Magriders. NC and TR leaves for Indar. whoever is losing that fight goes to Amerish. So you got a 3 different faction concentrated on 3 different continents. Then, all 3 factions will switch continents for easy capping on empty bases, rinse and repeat.

Gameplay balance - Air units need to be nerfed or be more expensive. I've never used air units before because I prefer infantry, but these units get too much kills and advantage.

Small/Medium base spawn rooms needs retooling to allow infantry to get out and not get farmed by air or mechanized units as soon as they step out. Give them 3 double-width doors. Open up the roof with shields so players shoot the hoovering aircraft right above the room while their nose is pointing just outside the door.

They can grab all the players they can with these promos but they will simply leave once they realise the game balance is out of whack.

I think it is exaggerated how these mines affect newbie experience. Most of the vehicle pads are located about 5 feet from the console. I assume most players have use of at least one eye. :doh: And it's no different that laying AI mines on stairs or doorways.

Instead newbies are leaving because of gameplay imbalances: The Zoes, the lolpods, the Harassers, the Prowler HEs of yesterdays etc etc. Newbies are also leaving because the Developer solutions eschew the basic gameplay, such as allowing Sunderer spawn to wipe easily, coming from the buffed Liberators and is the main reason why stopped logging on (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=58093).

But, I'll give an example of a current imbalance that the Devs are trying to solve heavy-handedly (same way as the NDZ, vehicle pad, jump pad solutions). It's Sniperside. Before Sniperside, Snipers are this way:

Ranged advantage + low Detection advantage (stealth) + Can't 1-hit

After much circle-jerking at the official forum, the Developers decide to change Sniper abilities. And despite warnings of how they are being gamed (read, I'm referring to Sniper posts at the official forum btw: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=948199#post948199 )

...SNIP...

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]
Nanoweave and Snipers

- I'll wait for the actual post, but these Snipers complaining about nanoweave want low risk/high reward situations. Snipers are already kill-streakers. The current system is fine. All these guys do is deploy spam until they get to a high cliff, high mountain, high building, top of tower, top of antenna, top of tree, then snipe with impunity with very low risk and high rewards. And they still want some more?

They don't need to fix what's not broken. All these buffs to Vulcan, HE etc. weren't necessary at all in the first place. All they did was break stuff for months. Just go to any Youtube videos of Snipers killing nonstop and you'll see there's nothing to fix.

Despite that, the Snipers are changed to:

Range advantage + low Detection advantage (stealth) + 1 hit kill head shot.

Hence, this crazy, advantage has been used to farm newbies. What's the Dev solution? Death Screen. In a similar vein as the NDZ and such, it encroaches unnecessarily on player gamespace. It's not player action that is telling where people are, but the Dev indirection action.

A better Sniper solution would be simple, well thought balance pass: Remove stealth ability from Snipers!

Finally, I reiterate that this is a philosophic battle whether the Devs should jump in or keep their hands off gameplay and leave player interactions to just the players. I still say that all the former does is make Planetside 2 fights less exciting and more bland and cumbersome.

Muldoon

2014-06-02, 01:14 AM

I don't recall using the term holding hands, nor it's in that spirit lol.

Think of another game, say, basketball. A referee would draw random circles on the ground where offense can't step on. After watching the offense dance around like clown just to get off a shot, the ball changes hands and now it's the other team to do it on the other side.

Hockey for the longest time had something like this. It was called the goalie's crease. An opposing player wasn't allowed to score while in the crease. It made it so the goalie had a buffer zone of not being interfered with. The No Deploy Zone is also similar to a modern offsides. It prevents you from goal hanging, which is similar to placing a sunderer directly on the capture point.

I think it is exaggerated how these mines affect newbie experience. Most of the vehicle pads are located about 5 feet from the console. I assume most players have use of at least one eye. And it's no different that laying AI mines on stairs or doorways.

Instead newbies are leaving because of gameplay imbalances:

Exaggerated or not, it adds very little to the game vs the amount of cheap and cheese for players who like to mine the pads. A variety of cheese is still cheese.

The reason most noobs left was because of performance until OMFG. After that, it's usually one of these: not being able to find a fight, or dying a lot. Some players have no idea how they're dying and the feedback the game gave was very sparse and difficult to understand. That's one of the reasons we added the killcam. Personally, I wanted to go further with the killcam, but what we have is still pretty good.

Finally, I reiterate that this is a philosophic battle whether the Devs should jump in or keep their hands off gameplay and leave player interactions to just the players.

There's no "we keep hands off gameplay." Everything we do has some hands on or design direction. For the best games out there, it's really hard to notice the designer's hand in the game, because it all flows so smoothly. There are some rough edges where you can see the designer's hand, but I don't agree with your solutions to fix that roughness.

Azzzz

2014-06-02, 04:08 AM

Well least they're talking to each other. Good to see a PSU poster interact with a Dev and vice versa.

Whether they agree or not is up in the air. ;)

Illtempered

2014-06-02, 03:32 PM

KesTro

2014-06-02, 05:07 PM

Rivenshield

2014-06-02, 09:47 PM

The playerbase should NEVER be divided.
It will be as soon as they go live on the PS4. Bifurcate user base, bifurcate dev programs with bifurcate budgets, et cetera.

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]it can't be half-measureslike what they've done with the No-Deploy Zone, Amp Station/Tech Tunnels, WDS Preseasons, Amerish Lattice etc. A lot of these ideas are underdeveloped, unstructured, incomplete or just plain misguided.
Every one of those (except WDS) is a kludge deriving from shitty base design. Every. Single. ONE.

I am looking forward to actually being able to capture and hold something -- to have that old sensation of YAY! WE WON!!!1!!11, if only for a day -- and perhaps engage in some one-on-one empire versus empire slugfests rather than the tired three-way shoving contest. I find myself utterly cynical as to how it will be implemented.

I am also going to point out once again that PS2 still has no user's guide. That is just pure fucking insanity. You want to know why new users drop out at appalling rates? That's why.

BlaxicanX

2014-06-02, 09:51 PM

Any argument that has the phrase "real gamers" mentioned in it is not an argument worth considering.

Figment

2014-06-03, 07:28 AM

My apologies if I offend, but I think this is exactly the kind of development mind-set that is ruining this game. I completely disagree with you and don't think you understand the very core-mechanics of what makes Planetside tick.

It's about giving us a big free and open world, a bunch of cool weapons to blow shit up with, and letting us go. You want to hold our hand. No thanks. I understand this is not always a nub-friendly environment, and may not live up to your profit-making expectations. Continue to sell-out as much as you need to. In the mean-time real gamers will go find the games on the cutting-edge, just like we did with Planetside 1.

Being able to get new players into the game (even the fodder types) and retaining them is extremely important to players.

What we lacked in PS1 for a long time (till the "tutorial missions") was a proper introduction design. I feel PS2 shouldn't have launched life without one.

In part, I agree with you that DURING THE GAME, the player doesn't need to be held hands. Think like mines on vehicle pads... Eh. They're the most logical spot to place them, are they not? So just make sure that when a player pulls a vehicle, he has a good oversight from the console on the vehicle pad: any blowing up is then your own fault. Of course, in PS2, the consoles are sometimes inside a room, or way above with the vehicle pads 50+m away. In some cases, we even had vehicle pads you could use as an enemy, with an enemy SHIELD in front of it (!). You know, at that base people refered to as the Star Ship Troopers fort.

But the problem is that players should be taught valuable skills before entering the game. They should understand the map, but not just the icons, what it means, strategically. I really liked that PS1 eventually had all these pop ups and exclamation marks for new characters, to make it easy to draw attention to things and explain it.

But even knowing the equipment or consoles is not enough - even if a must - doesn't suffice. The VR-Room is important (and IMO, players should probably start here, so they know of its existance and also, since it's an environment where people can ask questions and get an answer).

Currently I think the new player is not taught some of the more important stuff. One of the most important things is teaching the player to communicate with others. And be very clear and predictable in how and when these chat commands work (influence of zones, etc.)

The most important thing however, is teaching a player about situational awareness. Now, what this dev is on about, is teaching them while playing, after they got killed. Possibly, it might be more interesting to teach them off-line on where you could expect what kind of danger from. To teach them just how much danger there is. And that you should always be aware that any form of tunnelvision leads to being killed by something else from the side, above or behind.

I think it's more important to teach them how to move through terrain infested by hundreds of people (and how to observe the fight before making a move), than teach them to burst fire. Teaching them what information they need, where they can find it or how they can obtain it. Or at least, how they can reocgnise it and then how to use that information.

For instance, how to deal with camped and defending situations (where to check for enemies, what units to prioritise (those camping close, medics, spawn vehicles, etc), last resort: respawn elsewhere). Also teaching them that the most straightforward route may not be the most succesful route. Teach them to flank. Teach them to think about what their opponents will be trying to do and how.

This can be done with simulaitons, or even a paused scene from an actual player assault on a base, where in different moments different situations are recorded and frozen for the new player to learn from (both good things and mistakes, like running into a firing squad time and again instead of coming up with a different approach).

Teach them to be creative with the tools they have. Teach them to prepare for the next fight by reading the map and noticing what is going on, so they learn how to make a choice on where to go, why and what they can expect in terms of enemies and friendlies turning up. If you want to take a base three lattice points down the road, what counter-actions can you expect from enemies? What equipment will they be able to bring and what kind of preventive measures could you take? Should you consider changing vehicle?

But above all... Teach them that most of this knowledge will come over the months you play. Teach them that getting better and mastering this is the ultimate challenge. Don't teach them that short term gain (kills, exp) is relevant. Teach them the long term objectives.

A lot of those things people learn from experience. And it is exactly that gap of experience that a lot of people have with those who already play (or are simply smarter and adapt quick) that prevents them from getting into a demanding PvP MMO like this game.

This could partially be done with a simulator against AI, it could be done with "(De)Briefing Tutorials" (tactical analysis of a player battle as described before).

But the problem with that all, is that it's an awful lot of work. Plus... I'm not impressed with the tactical analysis prowess I've seen that lead to the various base designs and camping in the first place, so I'm not sure I'd trust the dev team to provide this properly.

It would be good if tutorial videos could be submitted by players though and accessed from in game, sorted by category of gameplay and situations.

Illtempered

2014-06-03, 12:56 PM

Muldoon

2014-06-03, 01:19 PM

Any argument that has the phrase "real gamers" mentioned in it is not an argument worth considering.

I agree completely. So much so I made a flow chart.

Do you play video games? -> Yes -> You are a real gamer.

I am also going to point out once again that PS2 still has no user's guide. That is just pure fucking insanity. You want to know why new users drop out at appalling rates? That's why.

While it would be great to have a user's guide, most new players would never look at it.

Of course we need to get new players into the game. Let's do that by making an amazing game that retains its veteran population with it's incredibly fun game-play. Build it and the nubs will come. Stop pandering to their every whim.

Every veteran started as a noob. And if veterans mop the floor with noobs, why would they stay?

ChipMHazard

2014-06-03, 03:21 PM

Of course we need to get new players into the game. Let's do that by making an amazing game that retains its veteran population with it's incredibly fun game-play. Build it and the nubs will come. Stop pandering to their every whim.

Not necessarily true. EVE has incredible fun gameplay, for those that like it, yet has a very poor player retention rate. About half of the new players leave within the first month.

If you don't offer a really good new player experience then chances are many of them won't stick around, also taking into account how frustrating PS2 gameplay can be for them.

Blynd

2014-06-03, 04:12 PM

Slightly off topic but maybe relevant would be the return of the underground vpads with doors at the end (or shields if you can't do doors) these in ps were awesome and we had alot of great infantry fights down them as another access point like the back doors and main doors.

As for the noob vs vet argument we have to remember with out noobs the game would die quickly because the vets would start to leave because pops would be low and so making pops lower so without new players and giving them some hand holding to an extent if it helps make them into a long term player then it's sacrifice we should make.
It's not like we can't drop mines a little bit away from the pad. And as has been said they are such a cheap kill and very annoying to loose your sundie as you spawn it wasting your resources. I don't mind dieing to a tank or even c4 but a mine on a vpad is just lame in my eyes.

As for contacting locking I'm all for it as long as hossin is in place then we can start a simplified version adding battle islands and more conts as time goes on. But hossin has been sat on test for what must be a year and that's ridiculous, just release it now and get searhus out ASAP too. We need more continents not guns.

Muldoon

2014-06-03, 05:08 PM

Here's a tiny update on continent locking. http://i.imgur.com/6o0M20J.png

Sarloh

2014-06-03, 05:10 PM

Here's a tiny update on continent locking. http://i.imgur.com/6o0M20J.png

Sir, that post just fuelled that spark of hope that has been burning for 1.5 years now. Make it, and make it good.

bites

2014-06-03, 05:14 PM

Thank you for the update sir :D

Really looking forward to this :D

Figment

2014-06-03, 06:05 PM

Here's a tiny update on continent locking.

I got some questions:

Once a continent reopens, you'll find 100% in the hands of the enemy. If you take one base, that's likely to be lost again shortly after.

What treshold(s) or condition(s) needs to be reached before it can be locked again by the empire that locked it before?

i.e. Is it unconditionally reopened for a certain period of time allowing an invasion to gain momentum?
Does it require being pushed back to such an degree, you lose "dominance" over the continent?

Is a lock immediate after the last base is captured?

Or do you need to hold all warpgate borders for a certain period of time and can this lock be broken or prevented by a well timed counter-attack?

Will players be rewarded with (temporary) extra exp or resources for succesful invasions or last stand defense to seduce them to fight till the end?
Can all three/four continents be locked at the same time?

If so, what happens next? Is there a reward?
If there's a reward, is this so lucrative it would encourage players to go fourth empire and create a giant overpopulation to make it happen? (Even at the last minute.)
If you want to assign such a reward, I would suggest you demand a character has been on that empire for at least three hours before the final lock occured, this way, you would discourage bailing to the winning team at the last moment.

From what I can tell, players aren't physically thrown out of the continent? Or does it work like the caves in PS1, where you can't respawn anymore once the cave is closed (not locked, in PS1 locked is simply capturing everything and getting the cave benefits)?
From what I understand, you have to simply capture everything, rather than just the main bases?

Asking, because you might discourage fighting at certain points where players give up.

I would also suggest that if all continents are locked, the following occurs:

The first two captured continents reopen, one for each zero-based empire.
The other two captured continents reopen slightly later. At that time, the third empire is allowed back on the first two continents. This to concentrate the fighting on both sides in two-ways. Otherwise, the winning empire finds itself fighting on 8 fronts at once.
If there's a large login queue for an empire, the warpgates one the already opened continents open early.
All zero-based players get full resources.
All zero-based players get a temporary resource and exp boost (for invading)

I would like to remind you that the original "Continent locking" had the following effects:

Continent lock:
- You would "lock" a continent by taking ALL the linked bases on the other side of the warpgates of that continent, thereby denying a link.
- All minor bases (towers) switched to the winner's side once all major bases were captured.
- Players weren't physically locked out of the continent.
- You could still create a new link by neutralising a base (draining it from NTU)

Continent closed:
- For certain events, empires were literally prevented from entering a continent (they would be allowed to invade only one specific home continent of a single enemy who would often concentrate their forces on either fight due to lacking manpower for both).
- As a consequence of the above, players would start ghosthacking the world if they won one of the home continent fights, since they couldn't go elsewhere.
- Players had to wait and warpgate camp till the last continent would open. This would sometimes result in a complete world domination by the winner of the home cont defense that the defender gave up on.

Cave lock:
- All cave modules actived for all linked surface bases.

Cave closed:
- No more respawns possible, whether you have a base or AMS, just revives from medics.
- Could still continue to fight and capture links if you still had a single remaining base. You could win through attrition (killing the enemies and prevent them from being revived).

The system as proposed now - as I understand it anyway - reminds me an awful lot of a combination between the closed continent and closed cave. So that's a bit different from a "locked" continent.

As stated before, the "lock" was capturing all access points on the other side of the warpgate (even a hack and therefore denying the link, would suffice to stop or stall an invasion, sometimes resulting in a counter-invasion!).

I hope everyone is aware of the differences between the Locked Continent definition between PlanetSide 1 and 2.

Muldoon

2014-06-03, 06:10 PM

I got some questions:

Once a continent reopens, you'll find 100% in the hands of the enemy. If you take one base, that's likely to be lost again shortly after.

What treshold(s) or condition(s) needs to be reached before it can be locked again by the empire that locked it before?

i.e. Is it unconditionally reopened for a certain period of time allowing an invasion to gain momentum?
Does it require being pushed back to such an degree, you lose "dominance" over the continent?

Is a lock immediate after the last base is captured?

Or do you need to hold all warpgate borders for a certain period of time and can this lock be broken or prevented by a well timed counter-attack?

Will players be rewarded with (temporary) extra exp or resources for succesful invasions or last stand defense to seduce them to fight till the end?

Asking, because you might discourage fighting at certain points where players give up.

Disclaimer: All of this is subject to change.

When a continent lock is broken, the continent has it’s warpgates configuration incremented to the next and default territory split is set for all 3 empires, and spawning is reenabled.

Thresholds are set by designers. It will trigger an alert. When the alert is won by the conquering faction, the continent is locked.

Last stands will be subject to alert XP like normal.

Figment

2014-06-03, 06:28 PM

Thanks for the info. I was just editing the previous post, so I have a few more questions. Will ponder a bit on the implications of what you just wrote. :)

Edfishy

2014-06-03, 07:11 PM

Here's a tiny update on continent locking.

Thank you so much! :love::love::love:

Mordelicius

2014-06-04, 05:20 AM

Hockey for the longest time had something like this. It was called the goalie's crease. An opposing player wasn't allowed to score while in the crease. It made it so the goalie had a buffer zone of not being interfered with. The No Deploy Zone is also similar to a modern offsides. It prevents you from goal hanging, which is similar to placing a sunderer directly on the capture point. No clue how hockey is played but again, it's a simple rule of reciprocity. Defense is allowed to put a Sunderer next to a capture point, yes? But as I've said before, the official reason is equidistant spawn for both defense and offense. A more reasonable NDZ would be 10-20 feet at most. The current NDZ is HUGE to afford that distance parity.

As for the hockey thing. I've seen this hockey video before. What if I implement a PS2-style no-sneaking-behind-the-goal-post-like-a-ninja-zone. That wild move would not ever happen ever. I read the Youtube comments and they are going crazy about this move.

mike legg lacrosse style goal michigan university - YouTube

Dropping a huge offensive no-skating zone circle around that goalpost would severely reduce alot of gameplay as well, I'd say.

Exaggerated or not, it adds very little to the game vs the amount of cheap and cheese for players who like to mine the pads. A variety of cheese is still cheese. I'm confused by this statement. It's just normal pvp gameplay, which is player to player interaction, which has risk and reward. If a player sees it, they shoot it (and the resource is wasted). If they don't, they blow up if they don't have mineguard.

Most pads are 5 feet away from the console. In a middle of a raging fight. you mean to tell me, 5-20 guys with line-of-sight won't spot it? Because that's the crux of it. I'm talking about mining it in a middle of a fight, especially at the crucial vehicle pad next to the Tech Plant SCU. I really doubt there's someone going around, randomly mining empty bases just to make alot of newbies quit.

Also, how is dropping an AV mine on a vehicle pad different from dropping AI mine on a stair or a doorway? The way you characterize newbies, means they will just die off these mines and they will quit as well.

And I sincerely doubt you would call dropping AI mine on a stair, door or an elevator pad cheesy too. Because if it is, then as all slippery slopes go, the AI mines will be next to drop off the precipice.

The reason most noobs left was because of performance until OMFG. After that, it's usually one of these: not being able to find a fight, or dying a lot. Some players have no idea how they're dying and the feedback the game gave was very sparse and difficult to understand. That's one of the reasons we added the killcam. Personally, I wanted to go further with the killcam, but what we have is still pretty good. What about now? What's the biggest reason why newbies are leaving after OMFG?

I'm pretty sure Higby said kill-cam was added to stop newbs from being farmed or something to that effect, especially by Snipers. That's why imo, it's better off to just remove their stealth ability. Stealths are for infiltrators. Having triple advantage of ranged, stealth and 1-shot kill is broken.

There's no "we keep hands off gameplay." Everything we do has some hands on or design direction. For the best games out there, it's really hard to notice the designer's hand in the game, because it all flows so smoothly. There are some rough edges where you can see the designer's hand, but I don't agree with your solutions to fix that roughness. Let me explain what I meant by the phrase "hands off". It simply meant let players interact with players, and let that interaction be the pvp gameplay. NDZ is not Player vs. Player interaction. It's Player vs. Dev interaction.

If I try to park on the NDZ:
- Am I interacting with other players? No
- Am I fighting other players? No
- What gameplay is created? None
- Who is preventing me from parking? The Devs
- Then who am I fighting? The Devs
- Who is winning? The Devs
- Are the Devs a faction? No
- Is there a gameplay born out of this Player-Dev NDZ interaction? None

I could do the same comparison with the Vehicle pads, Jumppads and Death Cam. We're not talking about safezone areas like the Warpgate or Spawn rooms. It's in the middle of the battlefield.

Who determines what Continent will be locked? Player vs Player interactions. Who determines who parks in the NDZ? Developers, not Player vs. Player interation. Do players have any input to at least turn it off via generator? None. There is literally no player input, interaction or gameplay with this system. It's not like a Generator mechanic, which has pvp and gameplay implications.

Give us tools instead that effect the same NDZ using Player vs. Player interaction (which is gameplay).

Example: I suggested the Sunderer Jammer as alternative even before NDZ was released.

- Offense deploys AMS Sunderer.
- Defense deploys Sunderer Jammer and prevents AMS Sundy from spawning player.
- That interaction has the same effect but is a Player vs. Player interaction (which is pvp is called Gameplay).
- Offense can move the AMS Sundy from the Sundy Jammer's AOE or just blow it up.
- Defense can defend the Sundy jammer or attack the AMS Sundy or both.
- All of these Player vs. Player gameplay interaction. The Devs ideally would have just given us tool fight each other, while removing their "hands on" fingerprint in-game, hence "hands off".

ringring

2014-06-04, 06:11 AM

Thanks for the updates Muldoon

On a different note this highlights again how much the game is twisting and turning because production on new continents is so slow or wasn't done prior to launch.

The version of continent locking wanted is very simple but requires several continents than we have now - in their absence we get this above and WDS too, both of which are more complicated and less satisfying.

I would say (with tongue in my cheek) that all of this should be part of a 'lessons learnt' review - you should have the important stuff in before launch because sure as shootin' it will be harder afterwards.

Figment

2014-06-04, 12:34 PM

Regarding the NDZ, I find it ironic it is okay to park a tank next to a spawnpoint and actually having the ability to completely control a base through that far more annoying.

Both NDZ and spawn camping are down to base design being based on Suiss cheese instead of internal fortresses with layered defense:

From out to in:

Anything goes -> field combat: (air) vehicles dominant
Base walls -> siege gameplay A: vehicles dominant
Courtyard -> breach gameplay: courtyard shields as first objective, access to inner area second objective. Vehicles not dominant but present
Inner base first level: Infantry can hold this without too much influence from vehicles
Inner base second level: infantry vs infantry only
Inner base third level: primary objectives and spawn, infantry only.

The NDZ was created because the primary objective was paved in the courtyard level for most outposts. Holding your ground is made next to impossible.

Illtempered

2014-06-04, 02:20 PM

I agree completely. So much so I made a flow chart.

Do you play video games? -> Yes -> You are a real gamer.

Why it would be great to have a user's guide, most new players would never look at it.

Every veteran started as a noob. And if veterans mop the floor with noobs, why would they stay?

Ok ok, yeah farmville players are real gamers. Give me a ***%#in break. I'm talking about real FPS gamers, yeah the master race. Go back to your farmville, console, and phone games if you don't get it.

Why would nubs stick around after getting mopped by vets? Um, because they're not pussies? That's the simple answer. Maybe you can't relate. That's how many of the dev decisions in this game seem to be made.

1) Nub(dev) logs in.
2) Nub gets owned.
3) Nub nerfs weapon/playstyle that owned him.

What got me so addicted to online gaming was getting my ass handed to me in Counterstrike.

Muldoon

2014-06-04, 02:44 PM

No clue how hockey is played but again, it's a simple rule of reciprocity. Defense is allowed to put a Sunderer next to a capture point, yes? But as I've said before, the official reason is equidistant spawn for both defense and offense. A more reasonable NDZ would be 10-20 feet at most. The current NDZ is HUGE to afford that distance parity.

As for the hockey thing. I've seen this hockey video before. What if I implement a PS2-style no-sneaking-behind-the-goal-post-like-a-ninja-zone. That wild move would not ever happen ever. I read the Youtube comments and they are going crazy about this move.

Dropping a huge offensive no-skating zone circle around that goalpost would severely reduce alot of gameplay as well, I'd say.

I'm confused by this statement. It's just normal pvp gameplay, which is player to player interaction, which has risk and reward. If a player sees it, they shoot it (and the resource is wasted). If they don't, they blow up if they don't have mineguard.

Most pads are 5 feet away from the console. In a middle of a raging fight. you mean to tell me, 5-20 guys with line-of-sight won't spot it? Because that's the crux of it. I'm talking about mining it in a middle of a fight, especially at the crucial vehicle pad next to the Tech Plant SCU. I really doubt there's someone going around, randomly mining empty bases just to make alot of newbies quit.

Also, how is dropping an AV mine on a vehicle pad different from dropping AI mine on a stair or a doorway? The way you characterize newbies, means they will just die off these mines and they will quit as well.

And I sincerely doubt you would call dropping AI mine on a stair, door or an elevator pad cheesy too. Because if it is, then as all slippery slopes go, the AI mines will be next to drop off the precipice.

What about now? What's the biggest reason why newbies are leaving after OMFG?

I'm pretty sure Higby said kill-cam was added to stop newbs from being farmed or something to that effect, especially by Snipers. That's why imo, it's better off to just remove their stealth ability. Stealths are for infiltrators. Having triple advantage of ranged, stealth and 1-shot kill is broken.

Let me explain what I meant by the phrase "hands off". It simply meant let players interact with players, and let that interaction be the pvp gameplay. NDZ is not Player vs. Player interaction. It's Player vs. Dev interaction.

If I try to park on the NDZ:
- Am I interacting with other players? No
- Am I fighting other players? No
- What gameplay is created? None
- Who is preventing me from parking? The Devs
- Then who am I fighting? The Devs
- Who is winning? The Devs
- Are the Devs a faction? No
- Is there a gameplay born out of this Player-Dev NDZ interaction? None

I could do the same comparison with the Vehicle pads, Jumppads and Death Cam. We're not talking about safezone areas like the Warpgate or Spawn rooms. It's in the middle of the battlefield.

Who determines what Continent will be locked? Player vs Player interactions. Who determines who parks in the NDZ? Developers, not Player vs. Player interation. Do players have any input to at least turn it off via generator? None. There is literally no player input, interaction or gameplay with this system. It's not like a Generator mechanic, which has pvp and gameplay implications.

Give us tools instead that effect the same NDZ using Player vs. Player interaction (which is gameplay).

Example: I suggested the Sunderer Jammer as alternative even before NDZ was released.

- Offense deploys AMS Sunderer.
- Defense deploys Sunderer Jammer and prevents AMS Sundy from spawning player.
- That interaction has the same effect but is a Player vs. Player interaction (which is pvp is called Gameplay).
- Offense can move the AMS Sundy from the Sundy Jammer's AOE or just blow it up.
- Defense can defend the Sundy jammer or attack the AMS Sundy or both.
- All of these Player vs. Player gameplay interaction. The Devs ideally would have just given us tool fight each other, while removing their "hands on" fingerprint in-game, hence "hands off".

You put a lot of content in your posts, and again, I disagree with a lot of it from a game design point of view.

You say No deploy zones is fighting the devs, and I disagree. Why, in soccer or hockey, am I not allowed to just stand next to the goalie and goalhang the whole game? The reason I can't is the offsides rule. Am I fighting the rule makers of FIFA or the NHL? No, I am playing a balanced game that gives people a sporting chance to win. If we let any strategy go, we start getting cheap no-skill tactics like that.

I actually don't like Anti-Personnel mines either, and think they're pretty cheap too. I'd love to remove them from the game, or make them give more feedback so people have a better chance of not dying to them. But the difference is vehicles have a large cooldown and resource cost. If you mine a pad, they essentially waste resources, where you can just respawn as a player. And people can't learn to play vehicles in combat if they never get a chance to spawn.

If for a moment I agreed we should take stealth away from the infiltrator, the community would go berserk. People are invested in the game, and we can't just take a primary feature away from a class. Not to mention at the range they do most of their killing, the stealth wouldn't have a huge effect anyway.

The sunderer jammer is a neat idea, but it's not something we need right now. There are more pressing issues.

BlaxicanX

2014-06-04, 05:38 PM

Ok ok, yeah farmville players are real gamers. Give me a ***%#in break. I'm talking about real FPS gamers, yeah the master race. Go back to your farmville, console, and phone games if you don't get it.

Why would nubs stick around after getting mopped by vets? Um, because they're not pussies? That's the simple answer. Maybe you can't relate. That's how many of the dev decisions in this game seem to be made.

1) Nub(dev) logs in.
2) Nub gets owned.
3) Nub nerfs weapon/playstyle that owned him.

What got me so addicted to online gaming was getting my ass handed to me in Counterstrike.

I'm really glad you're not a game designer. Your fratboy "alpha male" bullshit would never go anywhere in a game development environment. Counterstrike is renown for having one of the shittiest gaming communities to have ever existed, and the only reason it's survived is because its lobbies have a relatively small amount of players in them; you don't need very many players to get a Counterstrike match going, and only a hundred or so people per server is enough to ensure that you continuously get matches. By comparison, you need THOUSANDS of players *per server* AT ALL TIMES in order for Planetside 2 to function. It needs a larger community than ANY other game that has ever existed in order to function. So it can't afford to have this macho-man dudebro mentality of "fuck da noobs the MLG pro-players will stay!" It has to cater to "casuals" because whether you like it or not, "casual" gamers vastly outnumber "no-lifers" like you and I.

So cool, you want the game to cater to the "hardcore master race alpha" nerd? Alright, then what you basically want is for the game to be empty, with only a couple hundred playing it per server. Kudos.

ChipMHazard

2014-06-04, 06:08 PM

Figment

2014-06-04, 07:17 PM

*stuff*

Oi, that's uncalled for.

Just state your prefered design argument and provide some alternatives. Don't simply insult or suggest only the elite is allowed to play the game.

Why not suggest some ways to let devs help players learn the game, rather than take the easy route and insult a dev for not doing as you want without being constructive about it?

Even though I disagree with the solution taken by the dev team, he's got a point on the new player thing. However, while I disagree with the solution provided.

Currently the game provides and applies a "bandaid" or "cure" for the player (to a minor extend). Personally I'd prefer "prevention" and teaching "self-medication" through tutorials and hints in game.

Possibly players that die frequently getting some suggestions on changing their behaviour through loading screen texts or some such.

Raging about it is not the solution.

Figment

2014-06-04, 07:38 PM

You put a lot of content in your posts, and again, I disagree with a lot of it from a game design point of view.

You say No deploy zones is fighting the devs, and I disagree. Why, in soccer or hockey, am I not allowed to just stand next to the goalie and goalhang the whole game? The reason I can't is the offsides rule. Am I fighting the rule makers of FIFA or the NHL? No, I am playing a balanced game that gives people a sporting chance to win. If we let any strategy go, we start getting cheap no-skill tactics like that.

I would point out again that an "arbitrary off-side area" wouldn't have been necessary if the bases were designed around defense rather than "attacker wins once it can camp the box, which is as soon as it gets in range of the base".

Some of your bases have been improved, but not by far all. Had you listened to us during Alpha and beta, you'd not have to use such random band-aids now: you'd have ensured that defenders would have the distance to capture points advantage and would have non-vehicle campable approaches to those areas, while attackers would have to find ways to disable the defenders from spawning, rather than camping the box.

Your map design and win conditions usualy include "camp as much as possible", that's very off-putting to players who play defense: they'll quit the local fight. Which is off-putting to players who play offense: they either camp without skill, they lack a real challenge and worse, eventually they have nobody to shoot at all because the other party moved on (!).

This was a HUGE reason for players, veteran and I bet new players alike, to quit. The camping certainly was a huge reason to stop playing for my outfit and sister-outfits.

I actually don't like Anti-Personnel mines either, and think they're pretty cheap too. I'd love to remove them from the game, or make them give more feedback so people have a better chance of not dying to them. But the difference is vehicles have a large cooldown and resource cost. If you mine a pad, they essentially waste resources, where you can just respawn as a player. And people can't learn to play vehicles in combat if they never get a chance to spawn.

A couple comments here:

With thousands of players in an area (and especially with such low ttks), being able to deny areas to the enemy with mines or at least weakening them is important for a defender.

"Skill" is in concealed placement, denial placement, etc. No, it's not twitch aim skill, it's a tactical skill. The problem with PS2 is that it's a strategic/tactical game while it mostly provides derpy solutions: one hit kill this, one hit kill that. If you want players to die less, maybe just make everything less lethal. Allow players to respond.

The ability to detect or expect boobytraps is a skill too. Of course, with the way you designed it, detection is often too late: even if you spotted it, it often already went off and killed you. Again. This is your choice as devs to opt for really fast TTKs.

PlanetSide 1 had WAY more mines per player, but they were FAR less lethal. You are annoyed with mines in ways that I can't recall anyone being annoyed with mines in PS1. Also... We could pack as many EMP grenades as we deemed necessary in PS1. In PS2? You have to pay resources for it.

Speaking of which, your resource argument goes for the mines as well. In fact, it's likelier to be a waste since you got so few of them, they're bound not to trigger anything.

Anyway. The biggest issue to a new player in a mmo pvp environment like this is the sheer amount of threats. And you as a design team made EACH OF THEM instant death. You don't allow players to gain situational awareness. It is something I warned about during alpha/beta and maintain is a huge problem. And a huge source of frustration. Cause if you always die instantly to anything that attempts to camp, when are you going to be able to make a counter-move?

If for a moment I agreed we should take stealth away from the infiltrator, the community would go berserk. People are invested in the game, and we can't just take a primary feature away from a class. Not to mention at the range they do most of their killing, the stealth wouldn't have a huge effect anyway.

In my opinion it was a mistake to give infiltrators anything more than a side arm. I've played infiltrator since 2004. Don't tell me it's not OP to ambush people like that with low ttk weapons.

The sunderer jammer is a neat idea, but it's not something we need right now. There are more pressing issues.

IMO it's a bad idea. Why not just start with making attrition matter?

Repairs, revives and ammunition are too readily and infinitely accessible. Defenders are numerically disadvantaged, give them a meaningful logistical advantage: nerf medics and engineers and increase the reliability on equipment terminals.

And yeah, it would have helped if the dev team hadn't given every class to every player. For one, it would have made players unique. Gameplay uniqueness and pride in what they can do makes a character mean something to a person beyond cosmetics. It also makes alternate characters with alternative challenges, (dis)advantages and therefore alternative gameplay interesting. Your setup doesn't do that and I think it bores players sooner.

rpgawesome

2014-06-04, 07:57 PM

Mordelicius

2014-06-05, 03:56 AM

You put a lot of content in your posts, and again, I disagree with a lot of it from a game design point of view.

You say No deploy zones is fighting the devs, and I disagree. Why, in soccer or hockey, am I not allowed to just stand next to the goalie and goalhang the whole game? The reason I can't is the offsides rule. Am I fighting the rule makers of FIFA or the NHL? No, I am playing a balanced game that gives people a sporting chance to win. If we let any strategy go, we start getting cheap no-skill tactics like that.

Except, defense is allowed to park the Sunderer next to Capture point, correct? In hockey, are defense allowed to just block the goalpost all the time? Surely if the defense is allowed to park a Sundy to the capture point in PS2, then logically, and by rule of reciprocity, offense can be allowed as well.

I actually don't like Anti-Personnel mines either, and think they're pretty cheap too. I'd love to remove them from the game, or make them give more feedback so people have a better chance of not dying to them. But the difference is vehicles have a large cooldown and resource cost. If you mine a pad, they essentially waste resources, where you can just respawn as a player. And people can't learn to play vehicles in combat if they never get a chance to spawn. I knew it, AI mines are next....Again its' that "hands on" philosophy that's encroaching too much on Player vs. Player space.

And AV mines on vehicle pads is just normal gameplay that involve balanced risk/rewards.
Isolated Base in the middle of nowhere (0-5 players) - Low risk getting killed by defense/ low chance getting a kill. (Why even bother going to a faraway base to just drop an AV mine???)

Medium fight (5-20 defenders) - normal risk getting killed or losing the mine / normal reward getting a kill.

Heavy fighting (20-48+ defenders) - high risk dying trying to drop a mine or losing the mine / high reward taking out a vehicle.

The reason why I AV mine pads in the first place is in, for example, Tech Plants, the ideal spot to put my Sundy spawn is just out side the NDZ which is right outside the SCU. And that pad is right behind. See how all this limitations are so tied together and so frustrating?

It's the the same with attacking Vanu Archives and one can't mine the pads. They pull out a tank and your Sundy is toast next to C. Imo, it's a very valid strategy.

Imo, the Devs are mischaracterizing/misidentifying this as the problem. The problem I see here is more of a lack of a tutorial on AV mines or even AI mines. The newbies just lack a tutorial on how to deal with mines in general, that's all and that's it.Take any PvP MMOs without tutorials, and any players will be confused, even if the mechanics are simple.

If for a moment I agreed we should take stealth away from the infiltrator, the community would go berserk. People are invested in the game, and we can't just take a primary feature away from a class. Not to mention at the range they do most of their killing, the stealth wouldn't have a huge effect anyway. Whoa, wait a second! Snipers are different from Infiltrators!! I'm proposing removing it from long-ranged Snipers. Hence, if they have a Sniper rifle equipped, stealth is disabled. So if a regular short ranged weapon is equipped, then Infiltrators can still stealth. And oh, stealth has huge effect for infiltrators. That's why can they are mobile and can change location with impunity. There's way too much advantage and no downside at all.

I heard of a plan, according to a Higby video, to give Light Assults dual wield capability for their revamp. As a result the jump jet cannot be used while dual wielding, correct? Well, Snipers, has 3 advantages (range, stealth, 1-hit head shot). If LA jump jet will be disabled with dual wield, why can't Sniper (not infiltrator) stealth ability be disabled when sniping. Point being stealth is for infiltrators only, but for sniping, it is way stacked.

The sunderer jammer is a neat idea, but it's not something we need right now. There are more pressing issues. It would be great if it can substitute for the NDZ instead. It's a much better mechanic.

The PS2 Generator mechanic is the best example of "hands off" approach. It's all player vs. player interaction and gameplay. There's no Dev hands preventing players from doing anything, it's all player driven.

A Sundy Jammer would have a similar "hands off" concept.

Figment

2014-06-05, 05:25 AM

Ok i just read the upper post and I think im one of the FEW who are going to read it in full and understand it.
Yes this game has a lot of issues that nobody sees until you realise that all of your gaming and playing was futile because when you look at the forums or hear someone complain you will notice it too.
Now what I wanted to say and I KNOW it's hoing to sound dumb but here it is:
WHY DO WE PLAY VIDEO GAMES?
Because they help us escape our bad reality/relax or take a break/or we just started playing a long time ago and can't stop playing.
DO YOU REALLY WANT A SUPER DUPER REALISTICAL GAME?
No.Why?Because this is a futuristical shooter that is probably better that most games and it's FREE.

Be happy with what we got.It could be a lot worse but it isn't and remember IT'S STILL A F2P game.

Quick question:
- How exactly is this relevant to the thread?
- Are you saying consumers and users should never provide feedback or critique?
- Are you saying that one should just accept anything you get, because it's free?
- Does being "better" mean it's perfect? Does being "better" mean mistakes or potential refinements shouldn't be suggested or pointed out?
- If the objective of a game is to relax and be provided entertainment, doesn't that mean that if something is frustrating the game actually fails to deliver?

Either way, I absolutely fail to see what you're trying to achieve or what you are trying to convince people of with your message or even who you're trying to address. Worse, I fail to see the logic behind the argument (which seems to be very non-sequitur to the discussion of the topic anyway: "it's free, thus accept the game's implementation of game mechanic X/any game mechanics and combinations thereof"). :/

Figment

2014-06-05, 05:41 AM

Except, defense is allowed to park the Sunderer next to Capture point, correct? In hockey, are defense allowed to just block the goalpost all the time? Surely if the defense is allowed to park a Sundy to the capture point in PS2, then logically, and by rule of reciprocity, offense can be allowed as well.

The analogy doesn't quite work: defenders may be subject to different rules. In the sports analogy above, offense can be off-side, defense can not be since it's their side of the pitch. Hence defenders can spawn in the spawnbuilding, but the attacker cannot. Or, in PS1, defenders could use /b in their SOI, while attackers could not.

Yet, nobody was allowed to HART in within a SOI, to prevent bypassing of the defensive lines in order for defense to have a chance. You're better off describing why equal rules should be applied in this case, than that "it's natural". Remember, we wern't allowed to place vehicles at certain points near doors in PS1, due to potential blocking abuse.

Whoa, wait a second! Snipers are different from infiltrators!! I'm proposing removing it from long-ranged Snipers. Hence, if they have a Sniper rifle equipped, stealth is disabled. So if a regular short ranged weapon is equipped, then Infiltrators can still stealth. And oh, stealth has huge effect for infiltrators. That's why can they are mobile and can change location with impunity. There's way too much advantage and no downside at all.

Only downside is health (armour/hitpoints). Snipers did fine in PS1 without stealth. I've always been of the opinion it's too easy to have snipefils run around cloaked. Same for headshots being instant kills a lot leaving too little survivability to become situationally aware for a lot of people.

It would be great if it can substitute for the NDZ instead. It's a much better mechanic.

The PS2 Generator mechanic is the best example of "hands off" approach. It's all player vs. player interaction and gameplay. There's no Dev hands preventing players from doing anything, it's all player driven.

A Sundy Jammer would have a similar "hands off" concept.

Better but not perfect either. A valid strategic target, but should IMO just be tied to control of the capture point:

Not captured = can't place AMS due to interference range, but any that had already been placed remain functional.
Captured = can place AMS
Re-captured (by defense) = Massively reset capture progress (not just stop ticker or turn ticker around, defense needs more incentive and reward to regain control of points)

I dislike the "capture point area", manually hacking it is much more immersive, can be countered and provides some teamplay cover or stealth requirements, while providing a priority target to resecuring players (a way to control if a cap goes through.

I don't think people should be made aware of a capture attempt of a point or generator until it succeeds. These points however should be in the natural movement and defensive zones of defenders, so they discover this information themselves and by simply moving around, they already cover these areas of interest (rather than that they have to cross to the other side of the base to intervene). Information on what to do next, should IMO be provided to new players AFTER it happened.

Regardless, HART and Spawn beacons should not allow harting on top of buildings. I much rather deal with people who have to work their way up, than with people who drop behind you and get a free passage beyond your defensive line.

Illtempered

2014-06-05, 11:37 AM

Stop catering to nubs and just make the game good. Build it and they will come.

Illtempered

2014-06-05, 12:00 PM

11am Central and Mattherson is completely dead....

Not one hotspot for my empire when I logged in...

This game is dying, and in my most HUMBLE opinion, it is mainly because of the development mindset exhibited in this very thread. This game was supposed to be special. Nay, it had to be special. We all knew that. Ten years ago this franchise was absolutely revolutionary and ahead of it's time. That's why I was putting my money on Planetside instead of the plethora of other shooters that were out at the time.

We poured thousands of hours, and thousands of dollars into this franchise because we knew it was special. Now it's gasping for breath and it might just be time to put the poor horse down for good and wait for the next special thing to show up.

Edit to show that I have posted threads with constructive criticism http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=58070

Most of these ideas I would bet, can be agreed upon by people who understand this game. Instead of getting any of this, we got implants that can be monetized. Surprise surprise.

Figment

2014-06-05, 12:07 PM

Well tbh, this is one of the reasons I proposed to create LARGER servers with copies of continents, and over time start replacing continents as new continents would become available to take the place of the old.

This way, we would have long seen 10-15 continents, even if they're duplicates, but with servers so full that we wouldn't really feel them emptying for a long time. IMO, there were FAR too many servers for PS2 at launch. :/

Although at launch, it was still in beta really. :/ Most of the stuff that has to be implemented still is.

VaderShake

2014-06-05, 04:23 PM

it might just be time to put the poor horse down for good and wait for the next special thing to show up.

And what will that be? Battlefield Hardlines? (vomits in mouth)

Bottom line is in the world of FPS war games PS2 is still revolutionary on scale and scope and there is nothing else out there that can even touch it in that department point blank.

No one else is even stretching past 64 players in FPS's on the PC or shared any plans to.

Been playing video games since Pong in 1978 and there are very few titles out there that even remotely perk my interest as something new or interesting.

Like it or not PS2 is still revolutionary in it's current state but SOE could have done more to set it apart for sure. Then the H1Z1 announcement..ugh..

E3 is next week...they better show us something good...

Sarloh

2014-06-06, 08:27 PM

Planetside 2 is what I like to call; the holy grail of gaming. There is no game like it. It has elements of: FPS, MMO, RPG, strategy, driving, flying, not to mention 2000 angry hippies and rebels pointing their guns in your face on a 64 km2 map. 3 of them actually.

Planetside 2 IS the ultimate game.

Rivenshield

2014-06-07, 09:50 PM

Disclaimer: All of this is subject to change.

When a continent lock is broken, the continent has it’s warpgates configuration incremented to the next and default territory split is set for all 3 empires, and spawning is reenabled.

Thresholds are set by designers. It will trigger an alert. When the alert is won by the conquering faction, the continent is locked.

Last stands will be subject to alert XP like normal.

/raises hand

Is there any whisper of a chance we are going to get sanctuaries back? Even if they're just carbon copies of the 3D training environments stuck on teeny islands? They would eliminate the dozens of retards hanging around the WG and dragging down their empire's cont pop, and they give a wonderful place to gather for new assaults. They are important strategically and they lend themselves to that intangible of intangibles -- esprit de corps. Please?

Why it would be great to have a user's guide, most new players would never look at it.

/jaw drop

Wow. Just wow. Never fucking mind, then. I'll never ask anything of you again.

Azzzz

2014-06-08, 03:30 AM

Wow. Just wow. Never fucking mind, then. I'll never ask anything of you again.

I could be wrong but aren't there a few videos posted when you load up the launcher showing you a few tips and tricks? I recall the combat videos at least.

Although granted, not much of a "user's guide".

Stanis

2014-06-08, 06:28 AM

I actually don't like Anti-Personnel mines either, and think they're pretty cheap too. I'd love to remove them from the game, or make them give more feedback so people have a better chance of not dying to them. But the difference is vehicles have a large cooldown and resource cost. If you mine a pad, they essentially waste resources, where you can just respawn as a player. And people can't learn to play vehicles in combat if they never get a chance to spawn.

Can we get a clear indicator - or make it impossible - to deploy mines in an area where they will blow up ?
I must say I get annoyed putting them further and further away from a vehicle bay so they don't go boom.

It's just as annoying having your mine wasted as a vehicle.

On that note - in many cases a player is pulling a vehicle away from a fight. That means they can take the time to CHECK the vehicle pad.
Vehicle blows up once - you take the hint. Sometimes I forget to check but there are a few players that obviously know the auto-drive routes and put them down perfectly.
This seems perfectly fair play to me. The trade off between time to check and actually bothering to do so .. not to mention the likelihood and frequency of spawning vehicles.

Figment

2014-06-08, 08:10 AM

Can we get a clear indicator - or make it impossible - to deploy mines in an area where they will blow up ?
I must say I get annoyed putting them further and further away from a vehicle bay so they don't go boom.

It's just as annoying having your mine wasted as a vehicle.

On that note - in many cases a player is pulling a vehicle away from a fight. That means they can take the time to CHECK the vehicle pad.
Vehicle blows up once - you take the hint. Sometimes I forget to check but there are a few players that obviously know the auto-drive routes and put them down perfectly.
This seems perfectly fair play to me. The trade off between time to check and actually bothering to do so .. not to mention the likelihood and frequency of spawning vehicles.

If they can be placed, they should be placed, not blow up or deconstruct.

See PS1: force a spread, use red and green indicators on where it is allowed to place them, done.

Baneblade

2014-06-08, 08:42 AM

Figment

2014-06-08, 08:43 AM

If mines were not quite so powerful or able to be placed so close together, it wouldn't be a problem.

Where have I seen BOTH been done? >.>

Baneblade

2014-06-08, 12:43 PM

Where have I seen BOTH been done? >.>

I dunno Brain, SNARK!

Stanis

2014-06-08, 12:47 PM

If mines were not quite so powerful or able to be placed so close together, it wouldn't be a problem.

I hope at some point for an engineer class revamp.
In which we get the option to deploy a minefield and deny area.

In a way mines are missing their actual purpose massively. It shouldn't be about sneaky traps on a vehicle pad or getting one in position.

It's supposed to be about shutting down a section of road until clear.
It's like most static defences : missing the point.

Mordelicius

2014-06-08, 06:14 PM

I hope at some point for an engineer class revamp.
In which we get the option to deploy a minefield and deny area.

In a way mines are missing their actual purpose massively. It shouldn't be about sneaky traps on a vehicle pad or getting one in position.

It's supposed to be about shutting down a section of road until clear.
It's like most static defences : missing the point.

I've argued that a mine-field ability is best suited for Flash gameplay in my Flash Revamp thread: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=57229

As for Anti-infantry minefield, it has to be an AI mine sidegrade, that doesn't encroach on other grenade/C4 abilities, or else it becomes a grenade/c4 upgrade instead of a sidegrade. Imagine players thrwoing/dropping this in a cluster of players.

....

Special Flash Abilites - The Flash need more special abilities.

Sidegrade: Flash Shield Ball - Using the F key
- covers the Flash in a ball of shield that can absorb a fixed amount of damage for 5 seconds.
- The Flash cannot shoot while in this state and cannot roadkill players (just pushes them with no damage)
- The Flash cannot shoot for 5 seconds after the shield wears off (to prevent it from being abused).
- This would act as an escape mechanism, nothing more.

Sidegrade: Scatter Mini-Mine Field (damage) - Again using the F key scatters tiny mines (6-8) around the Flash
- Can be activated at any time.
- The mines would be invisible to enemies.
- 1 minefield active per Flash. Has 3 charges (can be reloaded) with 3-5 minute cooldown per use (so it's not spammable).
- The damages will be small but enough to injure Tanks/Harassers/Sundies
- Activated only by vehicles and will not hurt infantry, just their shields.
- Perfect for laying traps on advancing vehicle columns and eluding vehicles in pursuits
- Dropping them behind tanks is also good if they try to back away.

Sidegrade: Scatter Mini-Mine Field (disable)
- Similar to above but the mines will disable/slow the vehicle for 5-10 seconds
- Will not damage the vehicle.
- The more times it has been hit, the slower it becomes.
- Again, a different means for trapping attacking vehicles, making them vulnerable to allies.
- Also good for escaping.

Sidegrade: Tank/Harasser Jammer
- Weapon will be mounted in the Primary weapon slot
- Maintain lock on target vehicle up to 10 seconds
- Cooldown 1-1:30 minutes.
- Vehicle cannot fire when being jammed
- Not applicable to deployed Sunderers.

....

Mordelicius

2014-06-08, 06:40 PM

The analogy doesn't quite work: defenders may be subject to different rules. In the sports analogy above, offense can be off-side, defense can not be since it's their side of the pitch. Hence defenders can spawn in the spawnbuilding, but the attacker cannot. Or, in PS1, defenders could use /b in their SOI, while attackers could not.

Yet, nobody was allowed to HART in within a SOI, to prevent bypassing of the defensive lines in order for defense to have a chance. You're better off describing why equal rules should be applied in this case, than that "it's natural". Remember, we wern't allowed to place vehicles at certain points near doors in PS1, due to potential blocking abuse. Their only official argument is the attacker spawn should be equidistant to the defender spawn with regards to the capture point. That falls flat in two logical areas:

- Attacker Sundy spawn is destructible and defender Spawn room is not (false equivalency).
- Defenders can drop a sundy spawn in a capture point while Attackers cannot (reciprocity).

The defenders have been parking Sundies next to the Capture point for about a year now since the NDZ. The very fact that the Developers don't find that imbalanced, is further proof that the attacker NDZ is moot and should be removed asap, or at the very least for the sake of testing/compromise, limit it to 10-20 feet and see if makes any difference at all. If not, simply remove it all.

Only downside is health (armour/hitpoints). Snipers did fine in PS1 without stealth. I've always been of the opinion it's too easy to have snipefils run around cloaked. Same for headshots being instant kills a lot leaving too little survivability to become situationally aware for a lot of people. Then give the Snipers equivalent HP. That's a not a biggie at all as opposed to having stacked abilities that's in synergy with one another ( long range + stealth + one-hit = broken/OP combo abilities). What Snipers do is stealth, hide under covers, aim, unstealth, shoot for the head. Repeat.

Hence, the stealth ability for snipers ought to be removed.

Better but not perfect either. A valid strategic target, but should IMO just be tied to control of the capture point:

Not captured = can't place AMS due to interference range, but any that had already been placed remain functional.
Captured = can place AMS
Re-captured (by defense) = Massively reset capture progress (not just stop ticker or turn ticker around, defense needs more incentive and reward to regain control of points)

I dislike the "capture point area", manually hacking it is much more immersive, can be countered and provides some teamplay cover or stealth requirements, while providing a priority target to resecuring players (a way to control if a cap goes through.

I don't think people should be made aware of a capture attempt of a point or generator until it succeeds. These points however should be in the natural movement and defensive zones of defenders, so they discover this information themselves and by simply moving around, they already cover these areas of interest (rather than that they have to cross to the other side of the base to intervene). Information on what to do next, should IMO be provided to new players AFTER it happened.

Regardless, HART and Spawn beacons should not allow harting on top of buildings. I much rather deal with people who have to work their way up, than with people who drop behind you and get a free passage beyond your defensive line.

If you think you have a better mechanic, that's good. Make a new thread and perhaps the Developers will read or respond to it. But, I'm not arguing for perfection. I'm arguing for the developer "hands off" or "hands on" philosophy. I'm saying, in the current PS2 live build, the generator mechanic is the best example of a "hands off" approach where players interaction result in gameplay.

If I were to touch a generator to overload it. The enemy side has to shoot me or mine the area to stop it. If they want to fix the generator, I have to stop them as well.

The NDZ simply stops player from parking Sunderers. There's no player interaction or gameplay. That's the point I was trying to make. Their "hands on" approach is hurting PS2. They are simply not mindful of the implications.

Figment

2014-06-09, 07:33 AM

Their only official argument is the attacker spawn should be equidistant to the defender spawn with regards to the capture point. That falls flat in two logical areas:

- Attacker Sundy spawn is destructible and defender Spawn room is not (false equivalency).
- Defenders can drop a sundy spawn in a capture point while Attackers cannot (reciprocity).

Both your logic and SOE's logic is flawed.

The distance the defenders and attackers have to bridge should be proportional to the strength and capacity of either side. Since the attackers have the initiative, usualy have the firepower and the numbers, the distance and rather, the area, the defenders can realistically cover is much shorter. In fact, the attackers just need a breach, while the defenders need control.

The problem is that both you and SOE look at these groups as being equals. They are not. One of the groups bring combined arms to lock down a base, the other has nothing but infantry and maybe a few vehicles (that die within seconds).

The defenders have been parking Sundies next to the Capture point for about a year now since the NDZ. The very fact that the Developers don't find that imbalanced, is further proof that the attacker NDZ is moot and should be removed asap, or at the very least for the sake of testing/compromise, limit it to 10-20 feet and see if makes any difference at all. If not, simply remove it all.

This is a non-sequitor. Yes, the defenders have been parking them there, but the need for defenders is also greater. Your main complaint is that defenders can do something attackers can't. In a way you're right, but NOT in the way you think: neither side should be able to park it right at the CC! Why? Because the CC shouldn't actually be that close to the outside environment. It is simply too easy to dominate with vehicles.

But what I don't get is that you complain about Sunderers being able to get there, while it is far more problematic that Liberators and tanks can control the paths to the CC and lock it down.

If you think you have a better mechanic, that's good. Make a new thread and perhaps the Developers will read or respond to it. But, I'm not arguing for perfection. I'm arguing for the developer "hands off" or "hands on" philosophy. I'm saying, in the current PS2 live build, the generator mechanic is the best example of a "hands off" approach where players interaction result in gameplay.

If I were to touch a generator to overload it. The enemy side has to shoot me or mine the area to stop it. If they want to fix the generator, I have to stop them as well.

The NDZ simply stops player from parking Sunderers. There's no player interaction or gameplay. That's the point I was trying to make. Their "hands on" approach is hurting PS2. They are simply not mindful of the implications.

Whether it's hands on or off doesn't matter. What matters is whether the assignment they give to players is feasible for both sides. Both sides (attack and defense) MUST be able to perform these interactions.

It is for instance quite clear to me they didn't really know how to relate base size to defender numbers. The initial base size has been kept, despite tasking defenders with covering far too many approach routes, thanks primarily to the mere addition of a jetpack.

They designed bases and mechanics, assuming players could cover these things, without realising the amount of coordination and logistics required to do perform these tasks. The amount of defenders required to cover everything is simply too large and these populations are not available. Nor did they seem to have looked at the scenarios of what kind of strategies players would employ to win.

Given the designs and mechanics, camping the defenders was sometimes not only the easiest, but sometimes the only feasible way to win.

One of the problems with these base designs is the linear thought put into it, where oftentimes it is assumed attackers and defenders both start at point X and Y directly opposite to one another and will fight an equidistant distance to control points A, B and C. And maybe D, E and F. In reality, the vectors of attack vary constantly, while the vector of defense do not. Yet the bases were designed around defense against a single vector of assault and required concentrated defense to even hold that.

The same problem exists for counters. Counter-type warfare shouldn't require more numbers than the amount of units attacking. This goes in particular for air cover. It is far too easy to kill AA MAXes as a Liberator crew, to the point that I once killed 9 in two runs, while they never got us down to 20% health, simply because they had too many threats to deal with (both airborne and on the ground). They were dedicated to fight us, yet were made so much weaker than us it would take m a minute to kill us, while we could target ANYTHING on the ground and could kill in one shot or at most a few seconds.

They simply don't understand that dedicated platforms should be extremely strong because you can't afford to have many dedicated platforms in a combined arms game due to the sheer variety of targets while you can only use them against a narrow section of enemies, while jacks of all trades should be weak as you can afford to have many of these and can always use these in any given situation.

Too many players argue from a sense of entitlement, or worse, something I will call "convenient realism hypocrisy" (i.e. they argue something has to be "realistic" the moment it suits them, while they ignore this realism argument for everything else irrealistic that they're fine with). The only thing that matters is game balance, function and that it should result in a competitive environment where everyone stands a chance to perform the job they're assigned to do (ie. what the game mechanics and missions ask of them to create a "win", i.e. win at attack or defense, regardless of population).

PredatorFour

2014-06-09, 11:31 AM

Rivenshield

2014-06-10, 02:59 PM

I hope at some point for an engineer class revamp.
In which we get the option to deploy a minefield and deny area.

This, a thousand times. In the old game we could -- not stop, but slow down enemy tank zergs with our massive minefields of weak all-purpose mines. Combine that with a few offroute Spitfires, and you can buy time for reinforcements to see what's going on and show up. You can also turn small indefensible facilities into zerg-eating black holes -- again, for a short while. The Terran Republic was great at this. It was part and parcel of our corporate culture. It was how we compensated for crappy smallarms and meh vehicles.

Now we have good smallarms and vehicles... but I wonder if we (or the game) are better off.

Figment

2014-06-10, 04:49 PM

I think the problem is they think people would spam en mass. Though that might be the an extra argument. Too many objects for the game to handle might be more likely. Remember how they didn't want to do backpacks due to it meaning 25% less people on screen and all the problems with people disappearing in beta?

Babyfark McGeez

2014-06-11, 11:14 AM

In my opinion, base (and also continent) design is still the crucial flaw of PS2, and cont locks won't help there (allthough it's nice to finally see the core game mechanic come into play...took some bloody time). I last played in march, so i will just assume here they didn't magically change all bases in the past months.

Bases in PS2 have been designed in a non-linear fashion, clearly with TDM, conquest (BF) or domination (UT) modes in mind. PS1 bases on the other hand were more designed like an assault map (UT), linear with several, well seperated "stages" and an "arena" courtyard. Just compare videos of the two UT game-modes "Assault" (PS1) and "Domination" (PS2), and then look at the new, atrocious merry-go-round, AMP Station layout, you should recognize the problem.
Additonally in PS2 i don't recall many bases (except maybe biolabs) that offer a way to their own objective protected from vehicles / aircraft fire.
Those two flaws still existed in pretty much ALL bases. They did slooowly change some bases, but atleast on amerish that mostly resulted in stretching out bases and making defenders run even further through unprotected "arena" territory. The only base that, from a strategic viewpoint, was done well, was subterrenean something. It just felt horribly designed in every other aspect, confusing, cube-ish, full of elevator pads and with invisible "force fields"...oh boy...but the idea behind it was right.

And continent design itself is the other problem. They shot themselves in the foot so hard with the choice to friggin' handcraft every single area. I mean, that's just insane.
Some of the bases will barely ever see a fight anyways, and since size/number of continents is one of the most crucial points of PS and what's currently holding this game back it's just a mindbogglingly bad decision imo. It would have made much more sense to just find a couple of good (assault type) base designs, and copy+paste them over the landscape. You can allways change them later. Same goes for the landscape and terrain.

Sure it may look less gorgeous, but considering having many connected continents is the heart, the whole point if you will, of planetside (without them it's just "big maps"), i'd say it's necessary. I mean how long did it take them again to get out Hossin? Which is just continent number four i might add. Are there even any plans for the next one? When will we see Searhus hm?

Tl;Dr: Wrong priorities in the map design process (for a PS game) lead to the lack of continents, without which Planetside can't really work how it should/could. Same applies to bases, additionally the focus on TDM/Arena gameplay instead of Assault/Objective based gameplay results in pointless bases.
So even though i will probably check PS2 out again when cont locking is in, i don't see how cont locking can fix these underlying basic flaws in design and method. Next arena continent in 2016.

Figment

2014-06-11, 11:52 AM

Agreed completely, though I think there's need for some clearance in terminology as we both used "linear base design", but defined it differently.

I used linear in the sense that they literally designed it in a single line, without considering that you can step around that line. Your definition of linear means basically a convergent sink hole: from whatever direction you come, you'll end up having to go through the same order of lines of defense in order to get through the total defense. :)

Hopefully that should prevent a dev reading this from missing the point:

Combat flow was linear staged in PS1 with a fortress setup, because it accounted for 360 degrees combat, with a few openings in a few lines and only the VS MAX (being dependent on others) being an exemption. PS2 otoh requires 1080 degrees combat to be linear staged (thanks to jetpacks, jetpacks everywhere), but is often only simply linear in one vector direction (in all other directions, you can simply ignore all defensive lines) and indeed, provides an arena map situation + tanks and aircraft.

That results in such a different gameplay... :/

But it's so hard to get this message through it seems.

Illtempered

2014-06-11, 12:14 PM

Figment

2014-06-11, 04:25 PM

Baneblade

2014-06-11, 08:41 PM

I still contend that base design, and the whole game in general, was better at launch. Yeah nubs were getting owned by air because nobody had AA. Yeah some bases were too easily spawn-camped. So what? Those bases were for the most part the small and insignificant ones. I never wanted all bases to be the same anyway. The major facilities on the other hand, were hard to take. You had to take those gens out first, before being able to make a serious assault.

Bunch of wasted dev time....

We don't need these fortresses we have now... but we also didn't need control consoles placed where defending them is just about impossible. In PS1, base assaults that lasted hours and sometimes days were some of the most memorable moments and some of the best.

I for one would like a more procedural siege system. Links help, but they are only part of the solution.

RSphil

2014-06-11, 09:16 PM

looking forward to see how this changes the fighting. its taking a while but new things are coming and it will only get better.

Azzzz

2014-06-12, 04:37 AM

Not to bash SOE but they do have a track record of releasing content that well...breaks other things.

I too look forward to the cont lock but suspect it will take a couple updates when first released before we see the full impact.

Illtempered

2014-06-12, 08:55 PM

The mission-system is still broken. Yesterday I was at Rashnu proper, inside the dome, on the bottom of the mini-map it said I was at Rashnu Watchtower, and on the top, the points showed for Crimson Bluff, which I guess was my 'mission' to take. It would probably be a good idea to iron these things out before introducing new features. Please just give us and option to turn it off and have the mini-map show the points for the base we are in.

raw

2014-06-19, 12:46 AM

I actually don't like Anti-Personnel mines either, and think they're pretty cheap too. I'd love to remove them from the game, or make them give more feedback so people have a better chance of not dying to them.

I can understand why you don't like AP-Mines, however this is more of an issue with their current implementation. A change of perspective is neccessary; a squad lying down a minefield for area denial is a whole different thing than cheap kills with a mine hidden below the surface texture of stairs.

RSphil

2014-06-19, 07:27 AM

AP mines are part of the tactics of Planetside 2. unless used in a buggy way like hiding them under textures. Planetside is not a run and gun game its a game of tactics and thinking. K/D ratio is not a factor its the territory you own and AP mines are good for slowing down a surge of enemy troops and repelling them. pitty TR AP mines are the worst lol

Phantomdestiny

2014-06-19, 07:41 AM

What does the community think of cont locks without continental lattice? personally while it might slightly negate idarside , it will not bring the continental conquest fun we had in ps1

Gimpylung

2014-06-19, 07:59 AM

I think it a pretty quick and dirty fix tbh. They'll probably sit back thinking that'll keep us happy for a while and it'll be months(year or never maybe) before we see proper warp gate traversal and inter-cont lattice.

This game would go to an entirely new level of awesomeness if you could push an empire right back to their warp gate, drive on through the gate en masse and force them to defend their home cont via a battle island or whatever.

On enduring memory of PS1, was the VS taking all territory on Werner and unlock VS coloured Prowlers and Vannies etc. I saw it happen once ever but it provided continual motivation. A victory condition if you like, which elevated PS1 beyond just a large scale team deathmatch.

ringring

2014-06-19, 08:43 AM

I think it has every change of being a fail.

There are plenty people who hate Indar with a passion and that's because that where the fight always is (over exposure if you like).

Plus there are plenty people who will only fight there and will go into a strop if they can't.

There have been suggestions that the first crowd are organising themselves so that Indar gets locked - this will cause the the second lot to be mightily pi**ed off. Remember people think that you're supposed to go fight where you want, they've been schooled in it by this half-built game.

If the above does happen I think it will cause drama, otherwise it will be a damp squib.

If I was Higby I'd get a better set of 'cut and paste' tools added into the dev toolset because they're simply not producing new continents quickly enough.

Gimpylung

2014-06-19, 08:58 AM

I think you're on the money there. There was a fair old backlash to the lattice forcing people to fight on particular lanes and not anywhere they felt like.

No doubt history will repeat.

RSphil

2014-06-19, 09:11 AM

the main thing that needs to be looked at also is the reason to lock a continent, atm the bonuses for owning the continent arnt really that good and dont effect the battlefield. i hope the locking bonuses are a lot better and make you want to fight for that lock.

Stardouser

2014-06-21, 05:57 PM

You say No deploy zones is fighting the devs, and I disagree. Why, in soccer or hockey, am I not allowed to just stand next to the goalie and goalhang the whole game? The reason I can't is the offsides rule. Am I fighting the rule makers of FIFA or the NHL? No, I am playing a balanced game that gives people a sporting chance to win. If we let any strategy go, we start getting cheap no-skill tactics like that.

NDZ by itself isn't the end of the world, but considering many of the game's aspects, including audio spotting, shields where the defenders can fire out but no one can fire in (legitimately), and so on; NDZ and all of those things are indeed player vs dev.

Now obviously someone is going to say "but audio isn't good enough to hear shot direction". That might be a slightly valid point but not enough to justify automatic situational awareness granted by the game.

As for spawn room shields, in addition to the devs providing the shield and thus breaking the 4th wall, those features feed those who are treating this game as a deathmatch. When players continue to spawn as infiltrator-snipers in a base that's surrounded by tanks, knowing very well they can't get a visual on who's on the cap point from the spawn room, yet continue to spawn there and try to shoot who they can, you know they aren't playing to win. If you're surrounded by tanks and have no hope of breaking out of the spawn room, you should be spawning HA or a tank of your own from the next nearest base, not continuing to snipe from your surrounded base spawn point. Giving the shields just says to the players, "it's OK, you can't win, but we'll protect you as you try to get a few kills."; when there IS a way to win - spawn at the next base and come blast those vehicles from behind.

Now, I'm not saying remove the shield, but perhaps it should go down at some point? Or give some other way of penetrating it for the attackers?

Edit: I'd like to think that this game could be more like a war, than simply a big deathmatch, especially after continent locks mature. Instead of people complaining about dying to mines, know that those mines cost resources, so use your resources better than the enemy to win. Right now, though, with deathmatching all we have, complaining about matters of skill are more in our faces, I know.

Sibercat

2014-06-22, 02:12 AM

http://emluy2nhc3rhcha.info/mapclock.jpg
http://emluy2nhc3rhcha.info/thmnaul.jpg

Obstruction

2014-06-23, 05:44 AM

No, I am playing a balanced game that gives people a sporting chance to win. If we let any strategy go, we start getting cheap no-skill tactics like that.

that sounds like scrubspeak to me. i really don't think it was cheap no-skill tactics to place and defend spawnpoints in the best possible places. i think the no skill comes from the development side; they can't come up with something better than a zerg camping a spawn - despite two solid years of player feedback and thousands of complaints at every nerf to base defense.

and it isn't just no deploy zones, it's everything defense related. first they ruined Tech Plants. then the Crown. then let's not forget the lattice, which so many wanted for nostalgia reasons but for no attainable design goals. the hex system had problems, sure, but rather than address those, they gave up and put in 5 different weak solutions to symptoms of the larger issue that still plagues the game today.

and this type of scrubbish talk about people using "cheap" tactics that make total sense within the confines of the environment? that explains everything. you know what was cheap tactics? putting in OP weapons and/or vehicles for the sales, and then nerfing them so much that they have no use after sales plateaued.