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

Wargrim · 2013-07-10, 02:24 PM

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

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

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

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

Hooray.

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

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

Wahooo · 2013-07-10, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Wargrim

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

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

*sigh*

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

Isokon · 2013-07-10, 02:43 PM

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

WSNeo · 2013-07-10, 03:00 PM

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

Bocheezu · 2013-07-10, 03:01 PM

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

Chewy · 2013-07-10, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Bocheezu

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

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

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

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

Dragonskin · 2013-07-10, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Chewy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bpostal · 2013-07-10, 05:07 PM

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

Lonehunter · 2013-07-11, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by bpostal

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

Exactly

wasdie · 2013-07-10, 03:28 PM

Good.

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

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

Timithos · 2013-07-10, 05:46 PM

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

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

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

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

PredatorFour · 2013-07-10, 05:50 PM

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

Mastachief · 2013-07-11, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

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

Them silly devs.

kubacheski · 2013-07-11, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Mastachief

Them silly devs.

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

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

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

Isokon · 2013-07-10, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Timithos

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

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

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

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

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