Orbital Strike: Does it negate good team game play?

Tatwi · 2012-07-05, 11:11 AM

Question: Would a game play mechanic like Planetside's Oribital Strike negate good team game play, at the expense of the spirit of the game?

The main purpose of Planetside 2 will be to set team goals and accomplish them through the use of sound tactics and persistence. As a result, I have to wonder if OS is simply too easy and too powerful of a game mechanic to justify its use in Planetside 2.

As an example, last night in PS1 the VS fought for at least 2 hours to take the shore on the other side of a bridge. When the VS finally got organized and were able to push over the bridge with a bunch of tanks, air cav, troops, a bus, and a BFR they were able to land some Load Stars on the shore to repair the tanks. This repair depot was successful in keeping the tanks on the field and the troops, bus, air cav, and BFR were able to defend the repair depot to ensure its ongoing use. This in the field repair depot was the result of literally hours of effort and, it worked perfectly until it was hit by two back to back Orbital Strikes and was completely removed from the game in an instant. At that point, the progression in the whole battle was reset, with the end result being most of the VS logged out shortly afterwards.

So I have to ask, is that really how people want game play to be in Planetside 2? To me, it's seems contrary to spirit of the game, in that an instant, unavoidable, easy to use attack by a single player can (that cannot be countered) negate hours of team play. Also, it seems to negatively impact the flow of the game, while also making people feel like their time has been wasted (which is contrary to having fun and games are, by definition, supposed to be fun).

I'm all for big explosions and tactical game play, which is actually why I'd prefer not to see a game play mechanic like Planetside's Oribital Strike in Planetside 2. I would refer to see massive, long range explosions caused by artillery pieces or mortars, because those threats can be countered through cooperative game play.

Hosp · 2012-07-05, 11:22 AM

What you're really saying is...1 guy with an OS shouldn't be able to take out a team to some extent that it demoralizes that team.

To which i say, maybe that 1 guy wasn't working alone and it in actuality took a team effort to get that OS off.

In general, a good OS isn't as easy to land as many may think. But when you leave a nice juicy target to get blown up, that's entirely the fault of whoever (individuals or teams) is leaving that target open to such an attack.

That being said, if i see friendly loadies bunched up, i will stop and go out of my way to tell them to split up so they don't all get OSd. Same with Galaxies loading up, armor bunching up around repair stations etc.

Besides, it doesn't seem like OSs will be as spammable in PS2. so there's nothing to worry about.

Metalsheep · 2012-07-05, 11:35 AM

An Orbital strike i think fits perfectly into teamplay. Need a hard emplacement destroyed so you can move your teammates into the breach? Launch your OS. Need to hit that otherwise intangible AMS to take pressure off your base? OS it.

Once upon a time people had to EARN their OS's. Getting to CR4-5 was no easy feat, and OS's were rare and battlefield changing occurrences. It took a ton of teamwork to even unlock the ability to use the OS. The problem with OS's came after so many people earned CR4-5 and basically everyone had an OS. I've even used my own OS on a single sniper or wall turret just because i could.

if they came up with a way to better delegate OS's they could still be awesome tools.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-05, 12:12 PM

To me the os is kind of an i win button. Like the op said hours of work by quite a few people wiped out not through superior gameplay or strategy but with the i win button. I dont like it in ps1 and hopefully its better balanced in ps2.

Doxy · 2012-07-05, 12:17 PM

But doesn't OS has a visual identification before it hit?
Im pretty sure it's not that difficult to avoid it.

Kayos · 2012-07-05, 12:18 PM

I hope OS's aren't even in PS2. Last night in PS1 I was repairing turrets at the base I was defending when I got hit 4 times in a row from OS's while repairing the bases turrets. It is just spammed these days.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-05, 12:20 PM

Last time I was hit by an os I was sitting in a turret on a tower holding off a small squad and truthfully I couldnt get out fast enough. Ez win for that small squad.

maddoggg · 2012-07-05, 12:21 PM

I am seriosly not a big fan of OS,i absolutely hated it in bf 2142.

SixShooter · 2012-07-05, 12:27 PM

I can see the point of the OP but this is not a great example. First off, How many friendly OS's were used to take that piece of shore in the first place? Secondly, why was everything grouped in such a way that the battle could be lost with only two enemy strikes?

Honestly I could do without orbital strikes just because I hate that kind of stuff in games but if it ends up in PS2 then I'll learn to live with it and adjust my tactics accordingly.

Sephirex · 2012-07-05, 12:29 PM

If orbital strikes are brought in, I'd like to see massive resource costs and also some strategy or ability given to get out of the area in time or take shelter.

RedKnights · 2012-07-05, 12:36 PM

An OS is hardly an "I win" button. If I had a dollar for everytime I see one go off and not hit a single soul, i'd have a LOT of cash on my hands.

The OS, even in PS1 is:

Easy to Avoid - A Galaxy/Bus can go from a standstill to beyond the radius easily.
Very Audibly and Visually Recognizable - You never have to question if it's coming
Does not inflict much damage to a side - At most you will lose a single mobile spawn point.

An OS was a 'setback' but if you were worth a damn, it didn't slow you down much.

As for it negating team play, i'm not sure how it effects that, I mean it's deployed by one person, but what is that going to accomplish without support from teammates to take advantage of it? Not much, that's what.

The fact is, so far we've heard it is definately going to be implimented in PS2, or something similar to it like an airstrike/kinetic space missiles. We'll have to see how it plays out.

Wahooo · 2012-07-05, 12:38 PM

MetalSheep got it right. I have no issue with OS's themselves but the issue is simply the number available and that will be going off. There was really no long term planning is some of the BR/CR annual benefits with the game. Was suggested in a discussion a long time ago on the SOE forums that CR's should need to be maintained and that there be maybe like cert points so globals OS's and other things need should have to be chosen. Basically anything to cut down on the number of OS's that can be going off at any one time.

Purple · 2012-07-05, 12:44 PM

i dont think an os should 1 hit everything.

GreatMazinkaise · 2012-07-05, 01:13 PM

OSs are fine assuming they can't be spammed like they are now. Now in a session based shooter, yes, they are horribly broken, but that's something else.

Traenor · 2012-07-05, 01:17 PM

I have never played PS1, and i do not care about the power level of OS´s. I do however dislike anything removing play and interesting decisions. OS does that, as it in a lot of its time affecting the warzone have little to no counterplay. (Unless i have completely misunderstood how OS works, but i cant really see how it can be an OS and still be interesting in play.)