SCU Shield Change on PTS

Hamma · 2013-04-27, 02:31 PM

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...stment.120344/

Originally Posted by Kalyper

The generators that control the shields which protect the SCU room are now gone. We are trying out a new system where the shields will go down based on the percentage of capture. Currently, they will go down when the enemy capture bar is halfway full. If the defender retakes the point, they need to bring the capture status back below that percentage to restore the shields.

The idea behind this change is to stop attackers from disabling the spawn too early, which can cause the fight the end and in some cases never happen. This will give defenders time to recover or react to a facility that is under attack.

Known Issues:
There is no messaging of when the shields are disabled. We will be adding some VO audio to indicate when these shields go down in the near future.

Thoughts? Also - there will be a playtest today and this change is apparently live.

AThreatToYou · 2013-04-27, 02:33 PM

I don't like this. I also think we should have destructible spawn tubes and a contestable spawn room, but whatever.

Stardouser · 2013-04-27, 02:33 PM

Planetside is one big fight. Not too keen on setting minimum fight times for individual bases, that's CoD/BF, ie non-MMOFPS thinking.

I've said before, offense needs to be bumped up in this game so that we have a higher focus on vehicle convoys and sweeping offensives(and more emphasis on air interdiction as a result) instead of long sieges.

ETD · 2013-04-27, 02:34 PM

I think it's an interesting idea.

Gonna jump on the PTS now for the playtest. Let's see how well it works.

Bravix · 2013-04-27, 02:35 PM

Don't like it. If anything, make the SCU easier for the defenders to defend. Don't make it impossible to take down though.

ringring · 2013-04-27, 02:38 PM

So, no possibility of a tactical group knocking a base offline before the enemy can respond.

It sounds like it is a boost to zerg-play.

basti · 2013-04-27, 02:43 PM

Interresting.

Gonna make sure i give this thing a good look.

WSNeo · 2013-04-27, 02:54 PM

Sounds interesting, though I'm not going to judge it before I've tried it.

Why not keep the SCU option there, but instead move the SCU inside/underneath the spawnroom, so at the halfway mark, the SCU is exposed, however the attackers have to push beyond the defender's spawnroom to get to the now unshielded SCU.

Anyways, see you guys ingame in 5min!

Boildown · 2013-04-27, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by ringring

So, no possibility of a tactical group knocking a base offline before the enemy can respond.

It sounds like it is a boost to zerg-play.

Zerg play can be avoided, you don't have to run with the zerg. Zerg play can be defeated, set up a solid defense.

But ghost capping is a plague on the game that needs to be greatly diminished, and this looks like a good step in that direction.

ThatGoatGuy · 2013-04-27, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Boildown

But ghost capping is a plague on the game that needs to be greatly diminished, and this looks like a good step in that direction.

Exactly what I was thinking about. This means that XP hungry people who aren't willing to play the game for the FPS part of it can no longer make bank of XP with absolutely no resistance.

PS: I've noticed a lot of things these guys have thrown in are prepping up lattice. Can't waaaiit

ringring · 2013-04-27, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by ThatGoatGuy

Exactly what I was thinking about. This means that XP hungry people who aren't willing to play the game for the FPS part of it can no longer make bank of XP with absolutely no resistance.

PS: I've noticed a lot of things these guys have thrown in are prepping up lattice. Can't waaaiit

I have nothing against ghost capping personally. I think it's valid and should not be removed. I do have a problem about gaining the same XP for a ghost capture as you would for a full on battle.

But, of course the nature of ghost capping changes with the lattice anyway because an outpost captured is an outpost that provide additional links, now the is a strategic reason to ghost cap and also a strategic reason to maintaining your outposts enemy-free.

Baneblade · 2013-04-27, 04:25 PM

I don't think the generator was the problem... I think the single solitary generator was the problem.

ChipMHazard · 2013-04-27, 03:01 PM

Well it's only the SCU shield gen, so they will still be able to take down say... The four other shield gens in the Amp Station. Plenty of xp to gain from that.

ThatGoatGuy · 2013-04-27, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Well it's only the SCU shield gen, so they will still be able to take down say... The four other shield gens in the Amp Station. Plenty of xp to gain from that.

I understand that, but don't you get more XP from an SCU compromise/destruction than a normal gen? (No time to get in game to check)

p0intman · 2013-04-27, 05:45 PM

solved zero problems, created more problems.

What do they not get about the need for bases to be DEFENSIBLE so that spawns aren't camped without recourse? Do they just not give a shit? I feel like I've been banging my head against a brick wall and talking to a child who doesn't understand this concept of human behavior.