Huge Outfits and PlanetSide 2

[MuNrOe]

Hi Hamma and crew,
Long time since I posted here but here I go.

The problem stems with bases that are incapable (Spawn room can be camped by vech problem)of being defended effectively with small numbers of infantry along with the lack of a lattice system and the extremely fast TTK and re spawn times. Add to that the lack of meta game play and you have the problems outlined here in this post.

While the suggestion mentioned of limiting outfit number's is only really a patchwork solution to a deeper underlying problem. Lets face it if an outfit was forced to only have say 50 members then the outfits would create other outfits all still under the same premise. Example lets say the outfit "Killing" (pretty sure there isnt an outfit named this) has this restriction put on them. They would just go and make the following : Killing1,Killing2,Killing3,KillingG4 .

To solve the issues stated by Hamma you have to go back to the source and think outside the box. Only when you identify the underlying problems can you begin to build solutions.

I know allot of people put shit on PS1 but TBH its game play mechanics where close to being spot on. The real question is if the devs are going to be serious about these issues and make some major adjustments to the game to increase it's playability for large /medium/small outfits by adjusting the problems at the source. Or take the easy road and just make patch work cover up solutions to the deeper underlying problems with the game.

As an Officer who usually is running operations with groups between 10-30 people I have found the tactical and defensible aspects of this game not only mind numbingly boring but completely bias based on numbers and not skill. On top of all this the whack a mole game play and spread out fighting and all small outfits can do is run around capping empty bases. Small outfits always shined most in close infantry combat. This game currently lacks that.

Allot of things need to change I really hope the devs can work their magic and pull off something great. The first step is re-designing the bases with defense in mind along with non vehicular camp able spawn rooms and objectives that all link up to each other in a closed infantry environment.

Vech job should be to prevent the enemy from pulling more vech not prevent infantry from defending objectives and camping spawn rooms in regard to base structure and capture points .

Once this problem is fixed then we can talk about other suggestions to improve the game. (XP certs based on PS1 style base capture mechanics ect) But with comments like " To be clear, there are no plans to add a PS1 style "lattice" system or sanctuaries to the game" I sorta shrug my shoulders and say why bother TBH.

MuNrOe
BR40CR5

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natrual concentration of force?

* Yes.
* I don't know.
* Yes, either in perception or reality.
* Probably. That, or consider lowering the regeneration rate.
* I don't think so.

[QuantumMechanic]

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?

This is a huge thing for me. What I would like to see: when the mission system arrives, somebody with certs in Leadership can create defend missions.

So l (as a guy who loves defending bases because I'm a camping bastard) get a queue of missions that say "Defend base X for Y period of time. Reward: Z experience".

I know there are other like-minded base defenders out there.

The next issue would be the defensibility of bases. As they stand right now neither the attacker nor the defender really has an advantage. It just comes down to numbers. Bases should be designed with defense in mind.

[Fear The Amish]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Smaller outfits simply need to do what I've been doing in EVE Online for seven years; make good use of force multipliers.

Pull MAX suits. Use upgraded MAX suits and have a dedicated, fully certed engi keeping them alive. One MAX suit is easily the equal of 4-5 enemy especially one with engi backup who knows when he's taken too much damage.

Speaking of engies. Claymores are one of my favorite tools. When you jump on a base and start taking it as an outfit, have your engies jump into their claymore outfit, and start marking chokepoints and entrances with them. Then they can switch back to whatever class they want. Claymores don't disappear if you swap classes, so use them liberally.

Light Assaults with C4. Place your LA up high near chokepoints if possible. Tell them to hold their fire until the enemy is past them and shooting at your HA, then have them open up on their rear with C4. In the military we use this tactic of drawing the enemy in, then surrounding them.

Grenades. I make the vast majority of my xp every day from grenades. If you find yourself heavily outnumbered, then you're absolutely 100% guaranteed to find your enemy all bunched up in small pockets. Fill those pockets with lethal death pinecones.

There are also a few other ways to multiply the force of a smaller outfit, but I don't want this to turn into a TLR post.

The problem is with Force multipliers is the zergfit can have all of them, were as a small outfit needs to pick 1-2. Oh so you pull AI maxs and engies to heal well too bad because they have 5 libs overhead covered by 5-10 ESF and 22 tanks waiting for you. They nerfed the best force multiplier which was a Tech Plant and honestly im just tired of Liberatorside. I don't know what this game needs but currently with the Population were its at and lack of meaningful goals it forces everything into a zerg.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Malorn

It would be helpful to me if those in small and large outfits alike could comment on what they think would help make the game more enjoyable for them. Please think about the core issue and not symptoms of it. I already see you all want more tools for cross-outfit coordination. But at a more fundamental level...

Yes, Praise be to Malorn!

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)

Unsure...
I know I'm not usually hurting for Resources, but I'm a conservative player who only splurges when they are in abundance.
Honestly, this might be a symptom of each faction having footholds on each Continent, allowing a player to switch to whichever one their Faction is doing best on to restock their Resources faster.

...This might have to wait until we get more Continents so we can see what the Intercontinental meta-game will be like.

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?

Probably, it would certainly keep a Continent from switching hands in the span of a half hour...

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?

YES!
I mean, it doesn't have to be that much, but it needs to be visible and rewarding enough that people will actually bother to secure Bases before moving on, maybe forty percent of what you'd get for the Base Capture.

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?

I don't think so, it's just the only viable counter measures to Vehicle Spam right now is to spam your own Vehicles.

I've been rather satisfied with the improvements to AA in the previous patch, but considering the number of horrid pilots I still see in the air and the number of other peoples' complaints, I would suggest increasing the Skyguard's projectile speed and maybe buffing the Phalanx Turrets up a bit.

Ground game is terrible though...
Even if you don't think one-man MBTs are an issue, there is still the problem that most Outpost are horribly designed from a defensive standpoint (Amerish is a bit better about this though, so I hope that was your doing) and can only stand up to a couple of vehicles at the most.

...Since you work on base design, have you been looking at this thread?
If not, I have a concept for a keep-style spawn building to replace those two door shacks that might help:

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

As such, I feel we should probably focus on more immediate means of strengthening bases...

...Namely, replacing those deathtrap sardine cans that are small spawn buildings!

Let's face it, they are probably the worst offenders when it comes to camping, offering no real protection against enemy forces while simultaneously being more of a hindrance to defense then an asset.

A couple of days ago, an idea thread on "fortifications" got me thinking about Platoon Leaders having access to deployable Spawn Buildings...

Now the viability of such a concept is debatable, but it did lead me to a small spawn building design that would be a VAST improvement over the current boxes.

It would be a mushroom-shaped structure, a squat tower from which the base can be defended from.

The trunk of the building itself has no entrances, just a set of two spawn tubes, equipment terminals, and a shielded elevator for going to and from the second floor.
The second floor itself would be an octangular arrangement of bastions and machicolations, roofed in such a way that only the outermost lips of the bastions would be open to overhead bombardment.
This would allow the spawn building itself to be used as a defensive hard-point as well as providing defenders four potential sheltered exits down through the machicolations...

...The only downside is that Light Assaults will be the only ones able to get back INTO the spawn after dropping, but this could be partially alleviated by external equipment terminals...

Thoughts?

...I call it the Alamo Mushroom.

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)

I honestly don't think so...
If the Zerg is rolling, it's ROLLING!
Limiting deployment options is just going to hamper defenders trying to respond to a push.

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

This is a huge thing for me. What I would like to see: when the mission system arrives, somebody with certs in Leadership can create defend missions.

So l (as a guy who loves defending bases because I'm a camping bastard) get a queue of missions that say "Defend base X for Y period of time. Reward: Z experience".

I know there are other like-minded base defenders out there.

Hell yes, what ever happened to that wonderful mission system?

If we had something like what was described, where people could sign onto missions from a list, then it would be easy to automate the process for static base defense like in my old Garrison Duty idea.

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

The next issue would be the defensibility of bases. As they stand right now neither the attacker nor the defender really has an advantage. It just comes down to numbers. Bases should be designed with defense in mind.

Actually, as it stands right now the attackers will have a slight advantage due to taking the initiative...

Once someone finally notices their presence, they're more likely then not already entrenched as well as the defenders.
Hence my Alamo Mushroom idea, where the spawn building itself grant some high ground for the defenders to launch their counter attack from.

[p0intman]

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)

!

1) 100 fold yes.
2) 100 fold absolutely
3) yes, it also needs to be possible to actually defend vs swarms of vehicles. right now, xp wouldn't matter because of the overabundance of vehicle camping making defending impossible except to die from HE rounds to the face the moment i exit the spawn room.
4) absolutely
5) there needs to be a way to minimize the effect of zerg spam overall, if that means that spawn locations need to be tightened, im not sure.

Originally Posted by Hamma

Holy crap, something I agree with p0intman on. Tomorrow really is the end of the world.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

[Kail]

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations

Even if defending experience doesn't change, it definitely needs to be more visible. Maybe just every 5min & resecure pop up a notification with the +xp earned from defending so people see what they've accomplished.

I don't think increasing vehicle cost will reduce the spam that's problematic - that 40-80 people all pull something at the same time - and it would just wind up hurting the losing side even more.

As far as resources go, I have two big problems with the current system:

1. There is no incentive to fight on a continent you control little territory on
   • I know you can't just flip resources to be cross-continent as that breaks every time a new one is added. I don't think it's unsolvable though (maybe along the lines of dividing the amount acquired by the total available), and I hope it gets addressed somehow
2. Infantry resources are highly contested, and provide meaningful and useful perks that are still just "nice to haves" at the end of the day. But air/ground prevents their use entirely which on continents such as Amerish is a huge detriment
   • I wonder if acquisition of vehicles requiring 0 resources but something else about them does would help. Like the Zephyr costing a couple hundred resources but you can still grab a lib when your timer is up. Whatever it winds up being, lack of resources should reduce your force multiplier (like infantry), not remove it completely.

As for reduced deployment options, I'm not sure. What I honestly think is missing from the map, that hot spots don't provide, is the idea of "fronts" - like in all those WW2 documentaries with colored arrows showing how the armies are moving across the territories. Perhaps that, coupled with distance reduction on what spawns are available could help focus the flow of combat better.

You could even throw in sizing the arrows based on size of the push, and maybe even experience or resources bonuses for stopping a front's movement entirely (and a smaller amount for redirecting it). An attacking force winds up getting incentive to "follow the arrow" they're creating to prevent the defender's from getting bonuses, and defender's want to stop attacks.

[Fear The Amish]

Base defensibility in general would be a huge thing because right now as it is when i look at a map and we get hit by a zerg on any cont but amerish i go "ok can't defend here.. or here.. or here... ok! i gotta retreat back 3-4 bases against extreme numbers before i have a chance to take a 3x number foe. and usually it still is a lost cause because those bases (Amp station, New tech plants) can't be defended unless you have a zerg or at least a platoon + of your own on hand.

[evild]

Crappy base design/lack of interiors is a big part of the problem.

In PS1, in interiors, enemies were generally in front of you - being outnumbered just meant there was a large line up of them. In PS2 being outnumbered means you're completely surrounded and taking fire from all directions constantly. There is no area a small group can use organization to control.

Classic example: Consider a Tower of Death in PS1. A small group of good organized players holds against larger numbers. In PS1, you could hold the stairs because even if you're outnumbered, the enemy is in front of you, and you can potentially take many of them down.

In PS2 its like trying the same thing, except now there's windows everywhere, no cover, instagib grenades and light assaults on catwalks all around you and reaver spam from all directions.

Interfarms took this to the extreme, maybe a little too much but the point is the same.

Similarly, why do biolabs have the PS1 equivalent of hard-wired, shield protected routers from towers that lead just beside the generator. It makes it ridiculous for a group to tactically control an area.

Can you imagine how absurd this concept would have been for PS1? Think of the DS center on Cyssor (Gunuku), now add unkillable routers from both towers and go into to the gen with impenetrable shields for the attacker. Crazy. Why is it in PS2?

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)

So less resources per territory but greater gain to compensate? Allowing smaller groups to cover the areas that control the resource? That doesn't sound half bad if that's what you mean. Could give it a try to see if it helps.

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?

* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?

* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)

I do think territory capture should be slowed down to an extent to allow for a better defensive response.

As for XP rewards, not certain. I don't really think they would help incentivise the player-base in helping resolve the overall problem per se. It probably wouldn't hurt though. What I wouldn't mind seeing in regards to XP is the dynamic XP gain like we had in PS1 (PS2 needs dynamic XP gain).

Yes, the PS1 spawn options I think would greatly help some of these issues. Give us bind points back. 1 base bind point, 1 AMS bind point.

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?

Not certain about this one. The resource denial suggestion you 1st mentioned might help the players control this aspect.

[Sledgecrushr]

I think the size and scope of this game is difficult for a lot of people to get their heads around. Even if the DD have 350 people in the field fighting on one continent its still just a margin of the entire population on one continent. This game is bigger than the largest outfits.

[Fear The Amish]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I think the size and scope of this game is difficult for a lot of people to get their heads around. Even if the DD have 350 people in the field fighting on one continent its still just a margin of the entire population on one continent. This game is bigger than the largest outfits.

While yes it is a small percentage but add in Communications and tactics and it is effective well outside of its numbers alone.

[Javelin]

Originally Posted by Malorn

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)

1. Maybe. Honestly I feel the balance is a good middle ground between players that focus on a single playstyle and empire benefits of holding territory. That said small outfits should have goals to accomplish in enemy territory if outright capture is impossible, such as disabling base benefits or reducing the amount of resources it provides.

2. On larger installations yes. The smaller ones I feel are in a good place.

3. Yes. Double what it is currently would not be out of line. Also on a successful defense that territory should provide a bonus resource deposit of that particular type. This should provide small but tangible benefits of defending when "out popped".

4. No, Again I feel the balance is a good middle ground between players that focus on a single playstyle and empire benefits of holding territory. And organized (not necessarily large) groups have shown that zerg tank columns or air groups can be destroyed with good tactics (good mine placement, burster nests, close-in AV weapons.)

5. I think more options for smaller groups will be easier to find when more continents open up. A specific mechanic isn't needed, just more places to fight and defend.

[Malorn]

Regarding PS1 interiors, I think we forget how vehicle zerged the courtyards of bases were. I remember many a time I was camped into the base or tower, unable to get out without tanks and hovering reavers shooting into doorways the moment they were opened. It's just as bad of a situation as PS2, with two key differences being that in PS1 you didn't need to control the exterior in order to have control of the base, and the spawn room was near the control point. In PS2 you are required to leave the confines of the interior and move out to exterior areas (like generators) and secure them. There is no safe haven for defenders against vehicles. Once you lose control of the exterior the battle is over.

So when I see "undefendable" I believe it is because:
1) There are objectives in the exterior of the facility which can be influenced by the presence of vehicles.
2) The defender spawn is far from the capture point, meaning the defenders need to cross no man's land to get there while the attackers can park an AMS right on top of the point.

To illustrate, see bio labs - they are the exception and actually are defensible because the two things I listed above are not true. The spawn is very close to the points, and the dome protects the area from vehicle influence. Bio labs are actually very close to PS1-style facilities and have the same rocket-spam on the landing pads as you saw in PS1 facility doors after the courtyard got overrun.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Malorn

So when I see "undefendable" I believe it is because:
1) There are objectives in the exterior of the facility which can be influenced by the presence of vehicles.
2) The defender spawn is far from the capture point, meaning the defenders need to cross no man's land to get there while the attackers can park an AMS right on top of the point.

To illustrate, see bio labs - they are the exception and actually are defensible because the two things I listed above are not true. The spawn is very close to the points, and the dome protects the area from vehicle influence. Bio labs are actually very close to PS1-style facilities and have the same rocket-spam on the landing pads as you saw in PS1 facility doors after the courtyard got overrun.

HAIL MALORN!!! The Dev who actually listens AND provides feedback!

Yes, Tech Plants were also this way when defenders could teleport into them from the spawn and the one Shield Control Generator protected everything...

Problem was that, unlike Bio Labs with their satellite teleporters giving attackers up to five separate and spread out points of entry, Tech Labs really only had three real entry paths and two of them were for Light Assault only...

Thus they became meat-grinding kill-farming fest for anyone who could hold together more then half a Platoon in one.

Now I personally don't like the Bio Lab teleporters themselves just because they give the enemy a free safe zone to stage from right next to major objectives and require "active defense" in order to neutralize, but there locations as points-of-entry are great.
If possible, I'd redesign the legs of the base to be hollow tunnels leading up to a "basement" right beneath the dome that is accessed from the current teleporter buildings.
The teleporters themselves could be moved to somewhere in this "dome basement," or a landing in the legs.

For Tech Labs, I'd keep the external Vehicle Bay Shield Generators, but make them more accessible from the Main building through catwalks coming down off the first roof.
This would not only grant access to that level for attackers other then light assault, but also provide a reason for defenders to go up there by giving them a path that avoids getting run over by traffic (enemy or otherwise).
I'd internalise the spawn by placing it right over where the SCU Shield Generator is, make its exits either drop you down on the far ends of the Generators floor or lift you up to the first roof, move the SCU back inside the main building next to the unshielded entrances, and have a teleporter that connects the old spawn to the new one.
While this will lead to spawn camping, it will mostly be Infantry based, plus the teleporter and roof exits will allow smart defenders to flank said campers.

...I've got less ideas about how to fix Amp Stations, but I'd be happy to write those up as well if you'd want them.