| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
 |
PSU: It isn't what it looks like, well ok so it is.
| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
|
2012-12-21, 11:41 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #181 | |||
|
Major
|
The following were written out of order as fancy and stupor took over in turns. #1: I've never been a fan of resources being the driving motive for a fight. They're a long acting metagame mechanic that, rather than changing the terrain of the fight, affects a side's morale as they can no longer defend against one type of attack. (Re: Higby's comments on Air being the game's AA, remove a side's aircraft resource and you can't be countered.) Give them a different role, time is enough of a resource cost for vehicles as is (respawn timers = time as a cost that's paid after pulling). And now that I've remembered that this is supposed to be about outfit size, the question becomes is making resources a tighter control on player experience worth the possible enhancements that it would give to small outfits? Probably not. #2: I'm a fan of a slower game but that's because it opens up space for socializing between squadmates but I know that speed has been a theme for PS2 so probably not. If your goal is to allow for response time then the best option is to reduce the paths that the attackers can take allowing defenders to wall themselves up at a choke point using the capture time of the territories between the two forces to buy them time to prepare. #4: As Higby has said in the past that the problem with cost increase is that some people only want to do one thing and that thing requires a vehicle. If you're only interested in tanking then you're really being hurt by increased tank prices. I'd argue that the vehicle issue can't be solved through just "There are too many vehicles!" thinking. Making them more expensive won't reduce vehicles in a way that makes the game better. The two things in my mind that are up with vehicles are that 1: Vehicles are much more fun and 2: Vehicles are force multipliers with no effective downside. Don't make vehicles less fun, just make them less utilitarian. (talking about base openness here) There is only one place where infantry are more important than vehicles and that's inside a biolab. If you want some examples on this, check out how many people have bought the other AA arm vs an AI or AV arm for the MAX. Sounds weird I know but stick with my logic. If infantry fights were common and the opportunity for them was often then you'd see a large number of AI arm sales. The number of times AV MAX arms are useful I can count on one hand and that single finger stands for when there's a tank right outside the spawn. AA arms will probably be far outselling the other two because MAXs are responsible for keeping the rest of the infantry safe from the vehicle that can most easily spawn camp them. Though it might also tell you that there's not much quality AA in the game. #5: The deployment options trimming was something that I was honestly expecting to happen every day I was playing in beta. Heck, if you really want to play around with it and add some possible meta-ES have the NC be able to spawn at the nearest Sundy, the TR the nearest 2, and the VS the nearest 3. Then of course you would have the NC be able to spawn at the nearest 3 bases, the TR the 2 nearest, and the VS just at the closest. Squad beacons and home bases/AMS would be exempt from these limits. Not all territories need be equal. Nor do all hexs need to give the owning empire the ability to hack adjacent hexs. Try breaking up Indar to take advantage of the landscape and make solid lines of conflict rather than amorphous lines of scrimmage. This would make points that act as gateways so that some regions become high priority and thus tempting targets for lightning raids and harrowing defenses. Obviously these areas would be built up with an eye for defense. Robo has some great stuff in his post, I disagree with #6 as such an event would cause players to constantly chase it rather than getting swept up in a large organic fight. Remember, not everyone liked Rabbit ball events (I met some who actively hated them). Rabbit ball did have its place but it would have been best if done on a once a week basis on the secondary. #7 should be done with tunnels, claustrophobia and confined firefights can bring back some of that old, pushing through a base from a backdoor feeling of having multiple paths to a goal where every bit of cover could hide an enemy. Totally agree with numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8. Though I'd add in that LLU doesn't have to be the only way to cap a base and there really should be a thread for ideas on how bases could be captured. I have some issues with #3 as while the benefit was the reason for going behind lines to cut supplies, gens were always a target during any fight and were protected as such. The open nature of PS2 architecture prevents this as anything not in the core of the base is indefensible. The devs have seen this and the way it's being dealt with is putting the gen either inside the core of the base or putting the shield generator that protects it in the core. But there's also another reason for gen demolition... Also, story time. Suspicious Activity, if anyone on this forum knows that name I'll be surprised. It was a small ephemeral outfit created way back in PS1's past. It was built with the idea of speed, skill, and resource denial. The members would work in groups of 2 piloting mossies between bases and hacking out fresh gear while running. The goal was to see how fast you could destroy the spawn room and gen in a base and then get back out. The results were impressive. The live fire exercise I saw ended a large fight by destroying half of Cyssor's bases in a short enough time that the NC couldn't respond. There's more to the story but any more risks being sentimental. Spawn point denial is something that is currently ruled over by a single thing, the spawn generator. Having 2 points of weakness in the direct destruction of the tubes should be legitimate. After all, spawn camping doesn't happen if the tubes can't spawn anyone. Also, tower/territory spawnrooms shouldn't be involatile sanctuaries who's only remedy is conquest. And I seem to have made a giant post again. I should stop doing that.
__________________
By hook or by crook, we will. |
|||
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 11:44 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #182 | |||
|
Colonel
|
As a group we have to look for new ways to do things. If something isnt working for you then try something different. Consider yourself and your outfit in an honest way. What I do is find someone who is doing really well and is in a similar situation and then I try to learn from them. I have given all of you small outfit guys a great lead with Sujieun and you should make something of it. Good luck on the field. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 11:51 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #183 | ||
|
Private
|
I've rolled with little outfits, and big ones, and now play with one of the biggest ones I am aware of.
One and all, the the same failings exist, and the same successes. While size certainly matters, structure and community matter more. One of the large outfits I played with in BETA and at launch was a mess, it was pure grabass because the leadership was more interested in being the "General" than actually leading. The key for smaller outfits is building alliances with other small outfits and maintaining a common operational picture. Therein lies the problem, real communication and cooperation is rare in PS. Seems like a common issue when you have a system that allows anyone to lead, even the loudest kid on the bus who can muster enough social capital to lead people.. into failure. The reason I have stuck with a big outfit up to now, is that the leadership is active, communicative, and there are standards of conduct. The fact that they offer to conduct basic training for new recruits (and bother recruiting via applications at all) makes them a cut above the rest. I say your experience is what you make of it, and if you're not happy being in a small outfit, then be the leader you think you deserve and grow an outfit into something larger and well-run. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 11:58 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #184 | |||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
__________________
  Retired NC CR5, Cerberus Company. Not currently playing PS2. Anyone with a similar name is not me. My only characters are listed in my stats profile here on PSU. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 12:03 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #185 | |||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Small outfits do not have Divisions, nor "extra people" to fill holes in that "division", they have the members in the outfit. Those members also want viable game play that's meaningful. Like what was available in PS1. Blame the player is not a solution. You have not added anything to this thread but Hubris in the form of concern for the little people, and telling people they are bad at the game. None of witch is in any way shape or form constructive. Here, I shall offer a solution, at-least to one point. Allow Outfit alliances and a structure system ( tools ) for that alliance system to create a hierarchy and allow outfits to fill specialized rolls with in that hierarchy. This tool system needs to be IN GAME and not cryptic. As illustrated by Vets near 10 years ago, even if it was based on PS1's smaller scale. This creates a situation where in small outfits can fit into a larger structure and by virtue of combined arms, create viable game play, and not loose the individual brand the outfit provides. We did this in PS1, as part of the Ultra alliance, but having done that, I can tell you doing this out of game is frustrating, and time consuming. Last edited by MrBloodworth; 2012-12-21 at 12:11 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 12:09 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #187 | |||
|
Colonel
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 12:10 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #188 | ||
|
Private
|
The important thing to me is that not all players WANT to play in the same way.
Some people take pride in being an elite, small group of excellent skilled players and want to play the game that way. So be it. Some want to play as a cog in a large, coordinated battle-group designed to bring multifaceted smaller units together to complete a common goal. That's fine too. Personally I'd be bored in a tiny outfit, the numbers and the talent/skill required to help organize people is what drew me to planet-side, and the outfit I am in specifically. While I realize it is not for me, I agree that the game is not very fun for public small groups and needs some work to make it better and more rewarding for these units. Thanks Malorn for a great post that summarized much of what I have felt needs looked at in the game to make it more fun for EVERYONE. I hope that it is not our outfit spam-inviting anyone. We have a very tight recruitment process that includes an instructional session in person on our own voice server for EVERY new recruit, and a myriad of training available for all members of our outfit. I do agree that a spam-invite, zerg-outfit of nothing but a massive smash of randoms in one direction, could possibly be hurting the game. But unfortunately there is not much way to separate large UNorganized groups from large well-organized groups, logistically from planetside2 developers perspective. The best we can do is give the player that would join the zergfit better, more appealing options to join instead. Whether that's a big coordinated outfit or a smaller, more specialized/skilled outfit. And then hope players choose to join a better outfit instead. The unfortunate truth is, as big as this game's audience is supposed to be, we will never be rid of those lone-wolf KDR-centric players who just want the most kills in the least time. And if you ask me those are the players following (and charging headfirst) with the zerg. TL;DR: Don't hate on big outfits or small outfits or no outfits. The game is for everyone, find your niche and rock it. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 12:16 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #189 | |||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
__________________
Retired NC CR5, Cerberus Company. Not currently playing PS2. Anyone with a similar name is not me. My only characters are listed in my stats profile here on PSU. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 12:16 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #190 | ||
|
Master Sergeant
|
One aspect of smaller teamwork objectives is defensibility.
We don't need than another thread on base design, HE spam which are factors in that. I would like to submit we have a "no grenade" weekend. In turn the lower TTK makes defence harder without defense friendly design present. But, when attempting to hold as infantry v. infantry one aspect that makes that almost impossible regardless is grenades. I don't fear an entrenched enemy position. A grenade usually kills them or forces them to abandon. It is the infantry HE. I would like to see CE - mines and grenades be reduced in damage but increased in numbers. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 12:18 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #191 | ||
|
Lieutenant General
|
We're trying to revive the New Conglomerate Werner Alliance. Such alliances are a pain to get started though, since you need plentiful contacts and it's a two way street in contacting everyone and creating the network required.
We're hoping for an /a alliance chat. Currently Brutal-Deluxe (my outfit) and Armored Fist (and often Formido) join single platoons, but even then we don't field more than two squads really. Defense favours the attackers and since more numbers means you're on the attack and initiative and since defense doesn't work with the current layouts, we said from the start (hell, I told Higby at Gamescom) that this game is more designed for zerg than for smallish outfits. I was concerned then and I still am now. You'll also notice that it's always the zergfit types that think there's no need for defense because their numbers SHOULD win. But you know what happens when you limit outfit numbers? World of Tanks did that with clans. What happened is you had CSA, then CSA2. Then CSA3, 4 and 5. It doesn't stop them. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 12:20 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #192 | |||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
It is not about playing the game wrong. It about the design of the game. Before you even say it Hamma, I know, and that's the last thing ill say. Back on topic. Last edited by MrBloodworth; 2012-12-21 at 12:24 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 12:27 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #193 | ||||
|
Private
|
On the topic of Small groups, I AGREE WITH YOU!!!! 
|
||||
|
|
|
|
2012-12-21, 12:30 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #195 | ||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
I have no issues with large outfits. But it seems the idea of all player types being viable, non FPS players, small groups of friends, medium sized military outfits, ETC.. were lost in translation. Not that it was really ever the best of times for those groups in 1.
Large groups are covered. |
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
