Dear Sony: Fix bases first

Beerbeer · 2013-01-06, 04:25 PM

Dear Sony,

Please fix bases first. Please prevent vehicles from shelling the spawn room doors and move important elements away from vehicle access. In fact, moving spawn rooms closer to the objective would be ideal.

This game has a huge problem: no one defends, because no one can and it's easier capping empty bases. One part of that equation is: no one can. This can be fixed by fixing the bases. I love to defend. I'm sure many more would defend (even if it is easier to cap empty bases) IF the bases afforded the protection they are supposed to.

There will never be equal encounters; things will always be imbalanced across the map, from base to base. The burden should be on the attackers; bases should not be a liability.

Put it this way, if I'm in a zerg, I would much rather have a good fight with a few dug in defenders than no fight at all. Make me work and coordinate to overtake bases. Let those few defenders defend. ANY fight, prolonged as they may be, is better than tiny or no fights at all.

Bases should be force multipliers. Button them up already.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-06, 05:17 PM

And the only reason I say this before they add a meta game, is that things will turn out badly if people are forced to defend the existing bases. It will be spawn camping heaven by people like me. And while it will be good for my kill count, this will not turn out well in the long run.

Legolas · 2013-01-06, 05:42 PM

They don't want them defensible.

GLaDOS · 2013-01-06, 05:48 PM

Agreed. Metagame is important, but base design needs to be fixed first. The fight needs to be fun before you give it a purpose, or else people won't play.

Originally Posted by Legolas

They don't want them defensible.

And you know this because...

Legolas · 2013-01-06, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

And you know this because...

Because of that infamous Mosquito screenshot where we can see a defensible base on Ishundar, pre-beta, and yet they and completely redesigned them to be these lackluster lego pieces we have now. Why did they do this?

Because they put shield generators outside the actual base which is like putting locks on the outside of a house; moreover it appears to show a deep-rooted lack of sense in their current design philosophy, alot like single player MBTs does. I can let most things slide by, but others are just too much.

And because PS1 had defensible bases and they either misunderstand or abhor anything remotely to do with that game even where it worked. Even when it did not work.

Afew other things I've noticed:

- They have led to spawn camping by MBTs.
- They can leave you feeling unsatisfied when attacking and frustrated when defending. Less emotional connection.
- They render all the work put into buildings rather useless when people breeze by them, as scenery and nothing else.
- They undermine the offensive side of the game (as in, no defense aids the ghost-cap problem etc).
- They punish smaller outfits (20-40 people).
- They encourage the uber-zerg problem.
- The Crown (defensible!) is more popular than other places (because it works as an actual base?)
- They make some things like mines and engineer turrets useless for defense.

Figment · 2013-01-07, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Legolas

Even when it did not work.

Ohoho! That's just not true! They used cave Redoubt's flaws as a basis for outpost spawn design (including the inability to kill the spawns so forcing a building camp) and then complemented it with cave Module Building flaws for demanding the defender to make a perrilous journey through a camped crossfire in an attempt to get to a Control Console room with a short hold time capture!

Do pay attention!

@Beer: look at the posters pre-beta here defending every design decision by the devs by default. From Galaxy spawns to base mutilation to driver=gunner (even if it was just 30% of the posters).

We don't know what the people in that closed pre-beta session said. We can be sure at least some of them would have provided the same feedback we did though. Certain core vision and design philosophy were simply placed above player scrutiny by the devs and/or Smedley, including driver/gunnery. :/

Fujilives · 2013-01-07, 02:50 PM

Not that I view it to be a 'major' problem, considering how many possible spawn locations there are as it is (sunderers, squad spawn points, adjacent bases, hot-deploys etc), but I've seen the idea of a "spawn room" as archaic for years.

When I think of Planetside, it's hard not to think of Tribes 2 (The game I was playing when I joined PS1, and probably the one game I've invested the most real life time into). I bring this up, because Tribes 2 is a very old game, but they came up with what I saw as a very solid alternative to the spawn room called the "spawn sphere". You basically spawned anywhere in this giant (imaginary) sphere, and this sphere could contain buildings, terrain, etc - and you'd spawn anywhere within those, or on top of those objects. It made "spawn camping" a virtual impossibility so long as the map-designer wasn't stupid enough to create very-small spawn spheres. Sure, you didn't spawn invincible, but what good is spawning invincible if the second you try to "play" you get insta-killed by mindless spam?

Personally I think the "spawn rooms" are an O.K. place to fall back and change loadouts, but I think you should spawn anywhere in the general vicinity. I would suggest drop pods, but then you'd just see offenses get slaughtered by drop-pods destroying vehicles as a reward for poor defense.

The answer is in there somewhere, and I guarantee it's not "put them all in a small box where everyone can shoot the 1-2 tiny-ass-exit doors"... friggin' archaic design.

Phantomdestiny · 2013-01-07, 03:42 PM

this was higby an hour ago:

:We're sorting through a lot of great @Planetside2 community feedback & planning some big changes to address major issues being brought up.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-06, 05:48 PM

At this point, people are leaving because they can't even find fights. The zerg sets out, finds a few defenders, and eventually they leave completely. Then we're left with thirty people attacking undefended bases because no one is stupid enough to defend.

It's boring. I want a hard fight. I want a sense of accomplishment, by either taking over a well defended base or repulsing a large attack. I don't get that at all now. No challenge. Fixing bases would help to remedy this.

Paperboy · 2013-01-06, 06:05 PM

Smedley is running the show, all hope for change in this game is lost, it is already how they want it to be, so don't get your hopes up, he's got his hands covering his ears and his eyes closed while yelling "lalalalalalala".

He's singlehandedly ruined many SoE games, he won't stop with Planetside 2.

How can the devs be playing the game but never run into the problems we are all having? maybe they dont know how to fix it and they hope for the best.

Crator · 2013-01-06, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Paperboy

How can the devs be playing the game but never run into the problems we are all having? maybe they dont know how to fix it and they hope for the best.

How do you know they don't? They have more info about game state then anybody else. They have data/metrics, players don't. They have feedback from players. Players are just walking around with their heads cut off when it comes to what SOE thinks because SOE doesn't open direct bidirectional communications with the player base. This should soon change since they stated they will post future plans that they want the players to comment on to tailor properly.

Paperboy · 2013-01-06, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

How do you know they don't? They have more info about game state then anybody else. They have data/metrics, players don't. They have feedback from players. Players are just walking around with their heads cut off when it comes to what SOE thinks because SOE doesn't open direct bidirectional communications with the player base. This should soon change since they stated they will post future plans that they want the players to comment on to tailor properly.

I hope you're right, but so far my pessimistic thoughts have been confirmed again and again and again, this game has so much potential, too bad it is being wasted with so many annoying funstopping bugs.

Even with bugs everyone knows that are all over the forums and yet the moderators tell us to make a support ticket while some bugs have been going for months, unacceptable, it's like they have their heads in the sand.

Crator · 2013-01-06, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Paperboy

I hope you're right, but so far my pessimistic thoughts have been confirmed again and again and again, this game has so much potential, too bad it is being wasted with so many annoying funstopping bugs.

Even with bugs everyone knows are all over the forums and yet the moderators tell us to make a support ticket while some bugs have been going for months, unacceptable, it's like they have their heads in the sand.

Totally agree. IMO, SOE needs to listen more. Maybe they are but just taking their time to gather substantial info and putting it together in a plan that allows them to make the right changes. They are the game developers. They have a 3 year plan (although we don't know what is contained in it) so perhaps we the players just don't have enough info to make an appropriate suggestion for solutions. ~shrug~

Beerbeer · 2013-01-06, 06:18 PM

We really don't need data to see the state of things. We are assuming things, of course, which is never good, but things aren't well.

I remember reading an article about swg where he reportedly blamed the players for not liking the game and ruining it.

I thought to myself, huh?

It's like making cars and blaming the consumer because no one is buying it. Sony will make a car with six wheels because Sony knows it's better than four, then promptly blame everyone else for not realizing it's better, infuriated it's not selling well. I'm being facetious of course, but this is what it feels like sometimes based on some of their decisions.

Paperboy · 2013-01-06, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Beerbeer

I remember reading an article about swg where he reportedly blamed the players for not liking the game and ruining it.

I thought to myself, huh?

It's like making cars and blaming the consumer because no one is buying it. Sony will make a car with six wheels because Sony knows it's better than four, then promptly blame everyone else for not realizing it's better, infuriated it's not selling well. I'm being facetious of course, but this is what it feels like sometimes based on some of their decisions.

Indeed, thats the thought process of smedley.