Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)

Mordelicius · 2014-11-10, 07:16 AM

Why Battleflow should be improved next asap:
1) It's hard to find a fluid fights that go from base to base to base anymore.
2) PS2 will be released to PS4 soon - New players will be confused as hell, especially newbie, console-types who are new to MMOs.

Areas that need attention:

Redeployside - SOE Devs do not acknowledge this to be a problem. That's how out of touch the Devs are with the state of the game. The problem with redeployside are instant defensives resecures of bases with a touch of a button. It circumvents normal logistical limitations.

The fights are degenerating to either who is fastest to steal undefended bases or who has the biggest, unstoppable zerg numbers. Redeployment at medium to long distance should cost resources and/or should be tied to a timer.

Basically, VS Emerald redeploy, wipe offense. Redeploy again to find the base to 'steal'. Why are there so many bases to 'steal'? It's because they added unnecessary, new lattice links in Indar. PS2 Devs should visit Emerald once in a while. The population there is plummeting. The reason why VS do this is they have superior suppression fire weapons (lashers, precision guns, long range Maxes). All they have to do is get into position holding the points and supress. The TR nor the NC do not have supression fire capabilities.

The whole TR Emerald avoid fighting the Vanu (been saying this since the Waterson/Mattherson merger) because of their OP weapons and their redeploy spam. In any alert, you'll see TR driving hard into NC territories, while Vanu just take largely undefended bases. How bad is it? The Vanu Emerald run TR platoons to bolster their fighting capabilities/morale and 'win' alerts. Almost every alert is the same. TR attacking NC. VS basically ghostcapping/ mass redeploy spamming. Almost every TR win alert on primetime is a sham. The VS would rather let TR win and concentrate on NC because it's the TR who are afraid of them. Everytime the NC would get a lead (rarely), the VS will drop engagements with TR. TR do not go on VS offense (they are scared of VS). And what you got is a double team.

Current state of Emerald:
TR wants to fight the NC and avoid VS altogether.
NC will defend from TR zerg. Outnumbered fighting VS (losing territories, hard to counterattack).
VS is starving for a fight, but TR won't attack them while NC is underpopped against them because most are fighting TR.

Earlier, NC was holding the Crown. VS attacked twice, failed. TR zerg is driving towards Mao. What did the VS do? Mass redeployed and capture all the western NC territories at 3:1+ population ratio. It was actually 8% NC defending, but even scraping all available NC, it was 25% at best.

Alerts shouldn't cap a Continent - Under old alerts, Waterson used to celebrate a victory by queueing mass Galaxies and crashing them to opponent warpgates. It was fun for both sides. The fight also continues.

Nowadays, you get unceremoniously dumped to another continent. If you win, you can't even use a console to pull out a fireworks gun. Locking up continent after alerts break competitive momentum.

Resource 2.0 needs a rollback - The reason why players including myself are holding back on criticizing Resource 2.0 is due the fact that it was promised it was stage 1 of 3 stages.

Now that the whole thing is delayed indefinitely, they need to rollback all the awful changes that practically destroyed any reason to hold/capture any base. What's the point of capturing bases/objectives? NONE. Resources flow too freely and everyone just spam vehicles. Players also can't cap points inside vehicles. So, what's the point of encouraging objective plays?

Directives is antithesis of Objectives - I know it's too late to rollback Directives, but as it is, it only encourages farming.

Farming is antithesis to capturing bases. Sure there are some Directives on objectives, but for the most part players are now focused on farming for Directives. Perhaps they should tone it down a bit. I know they implemented it to sell a lot of guns and equipment and encourage completism, but it diverts alot of fighting flow to farming and more farming.

No-Deploy-Zone/Sunderer Issues - Sunderers spawn players. In a big fight, it is essential. There are other ways of spawning players, but in a 96+ fight, there's no substitute.

This No-Deploy-Zone prevents Sunderers from being hidden. A single Max can wipe out a Sunderer in any configuration. And it will outdps a maxed out repair engineer. Remove this monstrosity. At the very least, allow Sunderers to stick to buildings. It's funny they callously increased the sizes of these NDZ in many bases. It's as if they don't even know how hard it is to keep it alive and find a spot where attackers can't be farmed by defenders.

Where do you park in bases like the Allatum Botany Wing (without getting flanked by a tank)? That gigantic NDZ on Deepcore Geolab? Rhime Analytics? Bridgeward? Jaeger's Crossing (especially at C point, wow)? Ceres Hydrophonics (goodluck)? I can make a huge list. It's ridiculous. Snake Ravine, (under the bridge)? Ti Alloys? I could go on and on.

I don't often come to Amerish but last week, there was this base that's all sorts of awful. Even VS defending it and farming us NC was moaning on how bad the base design and NDZ is. Essentially, you cannot park a Sunderer outside a NDZ w/o being farmed or have your Sunderer get shot at from the Spawn point. The best spot coming north was behind ammo dispenser, but even that gets shot and flanked nonstop. I think it's that base west of Kwahtee Amp station. Horrible.

This is all because of that senseless No-deploy-zone. A simple solution would be to just remove that blight. That or give us a Sunderer that can deploy and and jam enemy Sunderer spawn or at least allow the NDZ to be disabled by a generator. All the PS2 Devs have to do is try to spawn Sunderers in any of those bases and see how long can it last.

Three-Point-Cap Revision - The problem with 3-point caps, an attacking force has to hold the majority while defenders do not have to spread out and just go through each point one by one.

An old suggestion is to keep a separate timer for each cap point, so it can be captured one after the other. http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=55755. Rather than give the defenders a luxury of camping one point while attackers hold 2 points. Give each point a separate time. If Attacker holds A for X amount of time, then it can switch. Attacker can move to B and hold it for another X amount of time. This will give the fight better balance. The defenders can't just turtle. they have to attack the A point that was recaptured and flip it again for X amount of time.

Lastly Biolab Changes on the PTS - There's a host of changes on the PTS Ikanam Biolab. It's going to make attacking Biolab even worse. The teleporter room has no shields. The underside of the Biolab can be camped by tanks shooting from the outside. And lastly, the NDZ prevent an attacker Sunderer from even parking, ouch.

The best way to fix the Biolab teleporter room is to just move it at the side of the airpad. Instead of having the landing pad structure, the landing pad would be the teleporter roof. Add ramp downwards and keep the shield. It will be hard to spawn camp because it's outside the biolab proper. Just offset the building a bit so it will fit instead of the Landing pad structure on the airpad.

SOE can't release PS2 in PS4 in this state, it will be another PC release part deux, where players leave as soon as they arrived.

Remember when they are all focused on 'promos' instead of balance at launch? This will be a repeat. The gameplay balance is not as bad as before. But there are still lingering issues with faction balance. Magrider hill climbing, evasion (they lowered all the tank range; what's the downside of this tank anymore), survivability and ability to wipe Sunderer spawns easily (Peek/Shoot/Hide spam). Try to defend your Sunderer against Mags sniping and dancing on a hill. That can't be done with a Prowler/Vanguard without prolonged exposure to danger. There's the no-render-over 300m Lancer VS squads and their no-downside guns, especially the 0.75x movespeed Orion which also has high precision and rate-of-fire, wow.

That and the Battleflow ought to be addressed before they even think of releasing this on PS4.

Post from Dec. 2012:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...000#post868000

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

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.

Whiteagle · 2014-11-11, 01:05 AM

Mord, I'm sorry to have come back here to discuss the Biolab on test just to read this rant of your...

Redeployment isn't an issue, or even a problem!
Are the Matthershitters abusing the Waterson VS excellent vigilance to steamroll fights?
Yes, but that what SHOULD happen when one is able to put of a vigilant defense.
What makes the "MLG PRO" VS insufferable is that this is coupled with their rampant abuse of Cheese, making them a chore to actually fight against.
Luckily, the PPA nerf has scared most of these vultures off for now, but their kind will always plague us...

I do agree with you on Continent Locking, it's a stupid mechanic that really only exist to force what little population that's playing onto the same map, and tying it to the Alert System doubly so.
Still, I seem to remember that it was guys like you clamoring for that sort of thing; For a Proof of Conquest that couldn't immediately be removed.

Resource 2.0?
Honestly I'd rather the current meaningless system over the old one that punishes you for not being the domineering faction.
We need territory we can actually fight OVER instead of just across before Resource Management can be looked at properly, while we STILL don't have WORKING WARPGATES YET!!!

Your personal beef with No-deploy Zones has always bugged me, the Defenders having a closer spawn to the Objective is suppose to be one of their inherent advantages, plus this helps spread out the fight density so it doesn't make the netcode go to shit.

Multi-point Captures are fine as they are; Attackers only require to hold a majority of the Points to eventually win.
Even if the Defenders only hold one Point and occasionally re-capture another, unless they can retake and hold the majority this only delays the inevitable.

As for Ikanam Biolab, the only change I see that was an improvement was decoupling it's capture from the Satellite Bases.
I'm of the opinion that reliance on the Teleporters should be reduced, if not elimated all together, since in Biolabs they are just used as a shortcut to get around the fact that were designed without any way to access them from the ground.

Honestly I'm with Figment when it comes to Base Design; Most need EXTENSIVE OVERHAULS, and the Biolab is one of the biggest offenders being basically a Beta Base design of random Shacks sealed in a Dome, then raised off the ground so tanks can't get in.

Mordelicius · 2014-11-13, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

Mord, I'm sorry to have come back here to discuss the Biolab on test just to read this rant of your...

They don't have to read it. They don't have to listen to it. They are in complete control of this project from the get-go. When is the last time they even posted here for gameplay discussion? Reddit/Twitter epigrams get buried too quickly without any argument or rebuttals. Yet they still rely on circle-jerks without reasonings.

Redeployment isn't an issue, or even a problem!
Are the Matthershitters abusing the Waterson VS excellent vigilance to steamroll fights?
Yes, but that what SHOULD happen when one is able to put of a vigilant defense.
What makes the "MLG PRO" VS insufferable is that this is coupled with their rampant abuse of Cheese, making them a chore to actually fight against.
Luckily, the PPA nerf has scared most of these vultures off for now, but their kind will always plague us...

Redeployside kills the flow of fights. Players simply bounce all over the place and still not get sustained battles that keep players logged in.

In Emerald this problem is magnified since TR Emerald is deathly afraid of VS Emerald. This is particularly true during alerts. You would see 48-96+ TR "defending" this base from VS, while the adjacency is 1-12

. They don't want to go on an offensive. Where do they go? NC. That leaves VS to attack NC. VS Emerald themselves do not want to go full on against TR, know they are already broken, traumatised and demoralised.

Emerald VS leadership does this until they get to a chokepoint base like a Tower/Biolab or any 3-point cap base. Then they leave it be. Once it gets attacked, they mass redeploy halfway into capping to farm it. Rinse and repeat.

A week ago, DA was begging NC to attack from Waterson's Redemption to Bridgeward. They tried to steal WR and it got mass resecured by NC at the last minute. They don't want to assault a defensible base and rather redeploy somewhere else. This happened with a 40% pop Vanu continent lol. They know NC/TR will go on one of these big fights allowing them to just steal NC bases with at least 3:1 pop ratio.

I do agree with you on Continent Locking, it's a stupid mechanic that really only exist to force what little population that's playing onto the same map, and tying it to the Alert System doubly so.
Still, I seem to remember that it was guys like you clamoring for that sort of thing; For a Proof of Conquest that couldn't immediately be removed.

I never pressured SOE, in any of my post, to speed up the implementation of any Meta system of any sort. My approach of it is to take their time. I do constantly criticize them on the broken basics of the game, such as Sunderers, NDZ, faction balance etc.

Resource 2.0?
Honestly I'd rather the current meaningless system over the old one that punishes you for not being the domineering faction.
We need territory we can actually fight OVER instead of just across before Resource Management can be looked at properly, while we STILL don't have WORKING WARPGATES YET!!!

They ought to rollback the old system until they got a clear plan. Players are simply farming nowadays. Less and less players mind the capture points/bases.

Even at the most crude form, there used to be fights on who shall cap/uncap a continent or who gets to warpgate who. I remember fights where the enemy is down to their last continent-cap bases and most players are there to try to defend it. Players log-in just so they can take/defend bases.

Your personal beef with No-deploy Zones has always bugged me, the Defenders having a closer spawn to the Objective is suppose to be one of their inherent advantages, plus this helps spread out the fight density so it doesn't make the netcode go to shit.

My 'beef' with the NDZ doesn't come with no reason at all. NDZ is wrong on so many levels.

1) Devs interfering with gameplay that is not PvP but PvDevs. There's no way to counter it (at least add a NDZ generator).
2) There are 2000+ votes against it vs ~1000 votes for it in the Roadmap, last i've checked last year.
3) Makes fights much predictable.
4) Lastly, the only 'official' reason for it (posted here in this very forum last year) is the equalised linear proximity of defender/attackers.
Unfortunately, much of the variables on this equation make it anything but linear, straight forward balance problem. There are so many intangibles.
a) Attacker spawn can be destroyed. This alone makes equal-distance non-reciprocal.
b) Attacker spawn is vulnerable in all directions (360 degrees).
c) Attacker has to defend the Sunderers, leaving less players to the capture points.
d) Attacker spawn is vulnerable from air (Light Assaults, Liberators, ESF, Valkyrie)
e) Attacker spawn is vulnerable to suicidal charges. Tanks, Suicide harrasers with C4/Mine combos.

What does this tell me. It's not needed. Its logical foundation that you have to have equal distance from attacker/defense spawn is faulty at best. Look, they applied this same logic to the Biolab last year. Correct? They artificially lengthened walking distance of defensive spawn by placing it deep underground. Old thread about it: http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=56882. I pointed it out on the first two sentences. It was obvious, what they are trying to do.

It caused nothing but hilarity and headaches

Multi-point Captures are fine as they are; Attackers only require to hold a majority of the Points to eventually win.
Even if the Defenders only hold one Point and occasionally re-capture another, unless they can retake and hold the majority this only delays the inevitable.

The problem with this is Sunderers are very vulnerable. All the defenders have to do is take out all the Sunderers.

What i'm arguing is if attackers are sitting on point C for half an hour, that point should be theirs. The defenders gave it up. This will discourage defensive farmers from turtling. As it is, that C that has been in attacker control for 30 minutes can be reflipped in a couple seconds.

As for Ikanam Biolab, the only change I see that was an improvement was decoupling it's capture from the Satellite Bases.
I'm of the opinion that reliance on the Teleporters should be reduced, if not elimated all together, since in Biolabs they are just used as a shortcut to get around the fact that were designed without any way to access them from the ground.

Honestly I'm with Figment when it comes to Base Design; Most need EXTENSIVE OVERHAULS, and the Biolab is one of the biggest offenders being basically a Beta Base design of random Shacks sealed in a Dome, then raised off the ground so tanks can't get in.

They should do a playtest show how bad the new configuration is. That's what happened with their last attempt at Biolab renovation. Imo, Biolab changes should be gradual, if they are really bent on 'fixing' it. This is one of the most iconic structures in PS2.

The one problem they are obviously trying to remedy is how to get newbies from getting from the bottom to the top without depending on teleporters from other bases, jump pads, or tower jumpads if there are walls.

When I have a sunderer in a walled-biolab, I always put it next to the Tower jumppads. Because if you don't, newbies will be wandering all over the place.

Whiteagle · 2014-11-13, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

They don't have to read it. They don't have to listen to it. They are in complete control of this project from the get-go. When is the last time they even posted here for gameplay discussion? Reddit/Twitter epigrams get buried too quickly without any argument or rebuttals. Yet they still rely on circle-jerks without reasonings.

The Devs aren't going to read your multicolored text diarrhea anyways, I forced myself to sift through it because this is the only place on these forums talking about the New Biolab on the Test Server...

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

Redeployside kills the flow of fights. Players simply bounce all over the place and still not get sustained battles that keep players logged in.

[Personal grips cut for sanity]

People aren't staying logged in for sustained Battles anyways you Blue Burgertard!

Why?

Because without any means of GLOBAL Conquest, you have to fight on a SINGLE Map at a time OVER THE SAME THREE DAMN BASES ON THE FRONT!
It doesn't matter how far you can push, because in three hours the other guys are going to have pushed it back, if some third fucker hasn't had the luck to LOCK the fucking Continent.

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

I never pressured SOE, in any of my post, to speed up the implementation of any Meta system of any sort. My approach of it is to take their time. I do constantly criticize them on the broken basics of the game, such as Sunderers, NDZ, faction balance etc.

Oh yes, instead of important issues like Working Warpgates that would allow us to shift Vehicles from one Continent to another, you've been pissing and moaning about stupid plebeian shit that YOU don't like.

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

They ought to rollback the old system until they got a clear plan. Players are simply farming nowadays. Less and less players mind the capture points/bases.

Even at the most crude form, there used to be fights on who shall cap/uncap a continent or who gets to warpgate who. I remember fights where the enemy is down to their last continent-cap bases and most players are there to try to defend it. Players log-in just so they can take/defend bases.

Why in the fuck do we need the old Resource System for this?

This is an issue due to the changes of the Alert System and Continent locking, not Resources, which only created a Snowball Effect so that the Defenders had less and less shit to DEFEND WITH!

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

My 'beef' with the NDZ doesn't come with no reason at all. NDZ is wrong on so many levels.

[More Personal Gripes, all of which were also true of the Original Planetside and thus DOUBLY WRONG]

Again, you are full of shit...
No Deploy Zones protect the Defenders from the Attackers having a closer Spawn to the Point then they do.
You know DAMN WELL that people were Deploying Sunderer right next to fucking Points anywhere they could, nullifying the ONE damn advantage Defenders have in this game.

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

The problem with this is Sunderers are very vulnerable. All the defenders have to do is take out all the Sunderers.

It's the SAME with AMSes, and they didn't even have guns to DEFEND THEMSELVES!

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

What i'm arguing is if attackers are sitting on point C for half an hour, that point should be theirs. The defenders gave it up. This will discourage defensive farmers from turtling. As it is, that C that has been in attacker control for 30 minutes can be reflipped in a couple seconds.

If the ATTACKERS are only turtling on a SINGLE Point, why the FUCK should they get the whole Base?!
They made NO EFFORT to move out, just sat on their asses, and camped in a single building FARMING Defenders for a half an hour!
That isn't a damn accomplishment, it's the barely acceptable minimum!
If the DEFENDERS did that, THEY LOOSE THE FUCKING BASE!!!

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

They should do a playtest show how bad the new configuration is. That's what happened with their last attempt at Biolab renovation. Imo, Biolab changes should be gradual, if they are really bent on 'fixing' it. This is one of the most iconic structures in PS2.

The one problem they are obviously trying to remedy is how to get newbies from getting from the bottom to the top without depending on teleporters from other bases, jump pads, or tower jumpads if there are walls.

When I have a sunderer in a walled-biolab, I always put it next to the Tower jumppads. Because if you don't, newbies will be wandering all over the place.

Well, those of us with big enough groups ARE trying to playtest it.
Hell, Roy Awesome made a damn Video pointing out what flaws he saw.

I came here hoping there was someone else to discuss these things with, but everyone apparently left for greener pastures...

Mordelicius · 2014-11-17, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

The Devs aren't going to read your multicolored text diarrhea anyways, I forced myself to sift through it because this is the only place on these forums talking about the New Biolab on the Test Server...

You forced yourself to sift through text diarrhea. There are nuggets in there, for sure.

People aren't staying logged in for sustained Battles anyways you Blue Burgertard!

Why?

Because without any means of GLOBAL Conquest, you have to fight on a SINGLE Map at a time OVER THE SAME THREE DAMN BASES ON THE FRONT!
It doesn't matter how far you can push, because in three hours the other guys are going to have pushed it back, if some third fucker hasn't had the luck to LOCK the fucking Continent.

People don't play this game for small, short battles. There are already a ton of multiplayer shooters for that.

Oh yes, instead of important issues like Working Warpgates that would allow us to shift Vehicles from one Continent to another, you've been pissing and moaning about stupid plebeian shit that YOU don't like.

I only complain about the basics of the game. They can't pile on "meta gameplay" with broken basics that is supposed to be the foundation of this game. More vague nonsense from you? At least be specific. You can cuss all you want. You're only making a fool of yourself.

Cussing and vague generalizations will not materialize any good reasoning, ever.

Why in the fuck do we need the old Resource System for this?

This is an issue due to the changes of the Alert System and Continent locking, not Resources, which only created a Snowball Effect so that the Defenders had less and less shit to DEFEND WITH!

So there's actually a reason to attack/defend bases rather than players just go on farm mode all the time.

Again, you are full of shit...
No Deploy Zones protect the Defenders from the Attackers having a closer Spawn to the Point then they do.
You know DAMN WELL that people were Deploying Sunderer right next to fucking Points anywhere they could, nullifying the ONE damn advantage Defenders have in this game.

Keep ignoring the fact that sunderers are easy to destroy. Any good Sundy spawner will park in a hidden spot rather than a closer spot that is fully exposed. I'm 100% sure you don't spawn sunderers. Or else you'd know this.

The problem here is, regarding distance, the No Deploy Zone forces players to either,
1) Park at a hidden, yet faraway spot and get farmed by defenders or
2) Park at close, yet exposed area right next to the NDZ and outrepair the dps on the sunderer.

Lastly, defenders can also spawn defensive Sunderer spawn. If defenders can do it, why can't attackers for the purpose of getting a secure spawn out of the firing lanes.

It's the SAME with AMSes, and they didn't even have guns to DEFEND THEMSELVES!

Without Sunderers, where do you spawn? Especially in a big fight? Galaxy? Beacons? That's not enough for most of the fights.

Magriders alone aren't balanced vs. Spawn. They hide, pop out, shoot burst damage, hide again. Imbalanced against static Sundies.

If the ATTACKERS are only turtling on a SINGLE Point, why the FUCK should they get the whole Base?!
They made NO EFFORT to move out, just sat on their asses, and camped in a single building FARMING Defenders for a half an hour!
That isn't a damn accomplishment, it's the barely acceptable minimum!
If the DEFENDERS did that, THEY LOOSE THE FUCKING BASE!!!

Read the original post first. Capturing a point doesn't mean capturing the base. You only get that point out of the three, hence, the Base timer will not go down.
1) Attacker camps A. Captures A after X minutes.
2) Next, attacker camps B. Defenders are forced to counterattack A to recapture it for X minutes.
3) If attacker captures B too. Then the base timer will start going down. Defenders are then pressured to recapture A or B. And that's their fault for turtling. It's the best solution for the 3-point bases.

Well, those of us with big enough groups ARE trying to playtest it.
Hell, Roy Awesome made a damn Video pointing out what flaws he saw.

I came here hoping there was someone else to discuss these things with, but everyone apparently left for greener pastures...

"Discuss these thing". All you're doing so far is Diss and Cuss things. Last I checked, it's already on Live. or at least the bottom part of it.

Whiteagle · 2014-11-17, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

People don't play this game for small, short battles. There are already a ton of multiplayer shooters for that.

Yes, which is why this game is dying like it is...

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

I only complain about the basics of the game. They can't pile on "meta gameplay" with broken basics that is supposed to be the foundation of this game. More vague nonsense from you? At least be specific. You can cuss all you want. You're only making a fool of yourself.

Cussing and vague generalizations will not materialize any good reasoning, ever.

You were whining about everything bad about EMERALD, how EMERALD TR attacks EMERALD NC instead EMERALD VS.
You're entire stupid argument was how UNFAIR things were for YOU, as an EMERALD NC player, which just reeks of bias and poor sportsmanship...

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

So there's actually a reason to attack/defend bases rather than players just go on farm mode all the time.

Like I said BEFORE, most people just farm anyways, the old Resource System just gave them a good excuse to STOP when their shit started to get pushed in.

At least now they'll fight till the Continent is LOCKED, instead of jumping ship as soon as their particular Resource starts running low.

The REAL reason everything is farm or be farmed has NOTHING to do with Resources, it's the lack of a feeling of practical accomplishment; IE TERRITORY!

Territory in PS2 is currently MEANINGLESS, because no matter how hard you try, the same three way split is ALWAYS going to be reset, either through simple attrition or by a Continent Locking and Reopening.

So yes, assigning arbitrary strategic values to this meaningless Territory still leaves it WORTHLESS, because no one wants to fight and repeatedly die just so some other fuck can keep pulling tanks!
THEY WANT TO PUSH THE FRONTLINE!!!

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

Keep ignoring the fact that sunderers are easy to destroy. Any good Sundy spawner will park in a hidden spot rather than a closer spot that is fully exposed. I'm 100% sure you don't spawn sunderers. Or else you'd know this.

The problem here is, regarding distance, the No Deploy Zone forces players to either,
1) Park at a hidden, yet faraway spot and get farmed by defenders or
2) Park at close, yet exposed area right next to the NDZ and outrepair the dps on the sunderer.

Lastly, defenders can also spawn defensive Sunderer spawn. If defenders can do it, why can't attackers for the purpose of getting a secure spawn out of the firing lanes.

Without Sunderers, where do you spawn? Especially in a big fight? Galaxy? Beacons? That's not enough for most of the fights.

Magriders alone aren't balanced vs. Spawn. They hide, pop out, shoot burst damage, hide again. Imbalanced against static Sundies.

God damn, how fucking long has it been since you've actually played that you're saying SUNDERERS are EASY to kill?

A well parked Sunderer can easily last a half an hour in even the heaviest fighting, but idiots like yourself push far too far ahead and then are wondering why the hell the enemy was able to nuke you so easily...

If you are RIGHT OUTSIDE the Base and the Defenders start pushing back, GUESS WHAT?
YOU ARE THE FIRST TARGET THEY ARE GOING TO COME ACROSS!!!

A great example of this stupidity in action is Fort Drexler on Hossin.
It's No-deploy Zone is such that you actually CAN drive up to C Point and Deploy behind its building, but that's going to be the Primary Target for Defenders when they push out.

Without the No-Deploy Zone, its a simple matter of SPAMMING more Sunderers in the Base than the Defenders can destroy; very easily done when the Defenders own TANKS need to drive halfway around the Base to get there.

So yes, Sunderers CAN be destroyed, but since they are also something the Attackers can bring EN-MASSE they needed a No-deploy "Sphere of Influence" limitation.

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

Read the original post first. Capturing a point doesn't mean capturing the base. You only get that point out of the three, hence, the Base timer will not go down.
1) Attacker camps A. Captures A after X minutes.
2) Next, attacker camps B. Defenders are forced to counterattack A to recapture it for X minutes.
3) If attacker captures B too. Then the base timer will start going down. Defenders are then pressured to recapture A or B. And that's their fault for turtling. It's the best solution for the 3-point bases.

No, that is a terrible and stupid idea, because it would make what was already a tedious and prolonged fight EVEN FUCKING LONGER!!!

The Attacker on Point A could easily just be ONE very "talented" FPS player, who wouldn't have to do ANYTHING but keep running to Point A to make sure it was still flipped for his Faction.
AS LONG AS HE IS THERE, HIS FACTION IS HALFWAY FROM CAPTURING THE BASE!!!

You'd only need two such players to Capture any one Base, which would greatly over favor an already insufferable "elitist" playstyle.

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

"Discuss these thing". All you're doing so far is Diss and Cuss things. Last I checked, it's already on Live. or at least the bottom part of it.

Yes, it made it to Live because Test probably didn't provide enough play DATA to get it through their thick heads that this was a BAD idea.
Thankfully they only applied it to ONE Biolab, one that was already a headache to take to begin with, so hopefully the Live Data AND pissed off playerbase will be able to get how idiotic a change this was through the Devs' thick skulls...

SkyrimHrothgar · 2014-11-20, 07:19 PM

Heh. I haven't read all of these posts yet,

Ghost Runner · 2014-11-20, 10:19 PM

While this has been an amusing read, I just want to weigh in that I think the Gernerators for the no deploy zones is a really good Idea.

p0intman · 2014-11-29, 06:29 PM

Battleflow in PS2 is fucked because Base design in PS2 is fucked. No deploy zones wouldn't matter if defenders had a fighting chance, but hey, I only said that for a year and a half or so.

Figment · 2014-12-01, 08:01 AM

Base design is everything in a game like this. PS2 would have lost far fewer players had they developed a good vision on base design from the start.

And if the people with minimum IQ that enjoyed camping spawnrooms for easy XP hadn't been here trying to stop this feedback from reaching the devs by saying everything is fine and you should "just redeploy" (which isn't and never will be a solution because it simply makes the game less interesting, more boring as fights end as soon as they started and thereby quicker to die: "not playing the game" will never be a solution!).

Figment · 2014-12-03, 08:33 AM

What I'd have done with the Bio Dome.

p0intman · 2014-12-04, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

What I'd have done with the Bio Dome.

logic not permitted. its too much like PS1, its too logical, it allows for too much defense and not enough camping.

/snark

that said, yeah, its one of the better ideas.

p0intman · 2014-12-28, 07:23 PM

copying over a reddit comment i made, because why the hell not.

Originally Posted by me

when I talk about 'base design' I'm not specifically referring to corridors.

If you go and look at the bases themselves, they had a logic to them. They could be looked at like an onion, quite literally. There were layers to each base.

there was the inner core - that is, the cc, spawns, gen and so fourth all near one another and HIGHLY defensible, but also assailable with the right strike force

then there was the middle layer - lobby, stairs, vehicle area

then there was the courtyard - a staging area for vehicles and troops

then there were the walls - the defensible area where sieges were either broken, or repelled

then there was outside of that, where the siege itself happened.

it all goes hand in hand, if you look at it.

right now, NONE of that exists. so, once you see that, remove your downvote and actually comprehend/discuss.
fix those problems and you fix battleflow.

addendum: take note, they're all important, but specifically the courtyard and walls portion. if you couldn't keep either secure, it was merely a clock ticking down until you lost the entire base itself.

or you can keep ignoring these facts, i don't really care. ive got no horse in this race anymore. the beautiful thing about facts is that they're true weather or not you agree or like them. The difference here is, I know, 100 percent, that I am on point with what I laid out. You really do have two simple choices to pick from:

a) accept the facts and use them to work to make PS2 better.

or

b) dont and watch PS2 crumble because its literally Call of BattleDewty MLG - the PS4 launch won't matter at all and won't fix any problems whatsoever.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/...h418?context=3

ringring · 2014-12-29, 07:10 AM

Yea I saw that pointman.

And you have people complaining that capturing a base means nothing because the next time you look it will have been captured right back..... well of course it means nothing and that's because it's too easy. You never value something if it comes too easily.

Figment · 2014-12-30, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by ringring

Yea I saw that pointman.

And you have people complaining that capturing a base means nothing because the next time you look it will have been captured right back..... well of course it means nothing and that's because it's too easy. You never value something if it comes too easily.

It's not just valueing something.

It's about being able to defend and protect your gains for a period of time.

"We" (group of PS1 vets everyone knows from the "whining") asked for this since alpha and early beta base designs: being able to tug-o-war a whole campaign from base to base, rather than steamroll back and forth. Being able to drive people off a continent, rather than just back to their continental spawnpoint.

Eh.