Dear Sony: Fix bases first

Beerbeer · 2013-01-06, 04:25 PM

Dear Sony,

Please fix bases first. Please prevent vehicles from shelling the spawn room doors and move important elements away from vehicle access. In fact, moving spawn rooms closer to the objective would be ideal.

This game has a huge problem: no one defends, because no one can and it's easier capping empty bases. One part of that equation is: no one can. This can be fixed by fixing the bases. I love to defend. I'm sure many more would defend (even if it is easier to cap empty bases) IF the bases afforded the protection they are supposed to.

There will never be equal encounters; things will always be imbalanced across the map, from base to base. The burden should be on the attackers; bases should not be a liability.

Put it this way, if I'm in a zerg, I would much rather have a good fight with a few dug in defenders than no fight at all. Make me work and coordinate to overtake bases. Let those few defenders defend. ANY fight, prolonged as they may be, is better than tiny or no fights at all.

Bases should be force multipliers. Button them up already.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-06, 05:17 PM

And the only reason I say this before they add a meta game, is that things will turn out badly if people are forced to defend the existing bases. It will be spawn camping heaven by people like me. And while it will be good for my kill count, this will not turn out well in the long run.

Legolas · 2013-01-06, 05:42 PM

They don't want them defensible.

GLaDOS · 2013-01-06, 05:48 PM

Agreed. Metagame is important, but base design needs to be fixed first. The fight needs to be fun before you give it a purpose, or else people won't play.

Originally Posted by Legolas

They don't want them defensible.

And you know this because...

Beerbeer · 2013-01-06, 05:48 PM

At this point, people are leaving because they can't even find fights. The zerg sets out, finds a few defenders, and eventually they leave completely. Then we're left with thirty people attacking undefended bases because no one is stupid enough to defend.

It's boring. I want a hard fight. I want a sense of accomplishment, by either taking over a well defended base or repulsing a large attack. I don't get that at all now. No challenge. Fixing bases would help to remedy this.

Paperboy · 2013-01-06, 06:05 PM

Smedley is running the show, all hope for change in this game is lost, it is already how they want it to be, so don't get your hopes up, he's got his hands covering his ears and his eyes closed while yelling "lalalalalalala".

He's singlehandedly ruined many SoE games, he won't stop with Planetside 2.

How can the devs be playing the game but never run into the problems we are all having? maybe they dont know how to fix it and they hope for the best.

Crator · 2013-01-06, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Paperboy

How can the devs be playing the game but never run into the problems we are all having? maybe they dont know how to fix it and they hope for the best.

How do you know they don't? They have more info about game state then anybody else. They have data/metrics, players don't. They have feedback from players. Players are just walking around with their heads cut off when it comes to what SOE thinks because SOE doesn't open direct bidirectional communications with the player base. This should soon change since they stated they will post future plans that they want the players to comment on to tailor properly.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-06, 06:18 PM

We really don't need data to see the state of things. We are assuming things, of course, which is never good, but things aren't well.

I remember reading an article about swg where he reportedly blamed the players for not liking the game and ruining it.

I thought to myself, huh?

It's like making cars and blaming the consumer because no one is buying it. Sony will make a car with six wheels because Sony knows it's better than four, then promptly blame everyone else for not realizing it's better, infuriated it's not selling well. I'm being facetious of course, but this is what it feels like sometimes based on some of their decisions.

Paperboy · 2013-01-06, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

How do you know they don't? They have more info about game state then anybody else. They have data/metrics, players don't. They have feedback from players. Players are just walking around with their heads cut off when it comes to what SOE thinks because SOE doesn't open direct bidirectional communications with the player base. This should soon change since they stated they will post future plans that they want the players to comment on to tailor properly.

I hope you're right, but so far my pessimistic thoughts have been confirmed again and again and again, this game has so much potential, too bad it is being wasted with so many annoying funstopping bugs.

Even with bugs everyone knows that are all over the forums and yet the moderators tell us to make a support ticket while some bugs have been going for months, unacceptable, it's like they have their heads in the sand.

Paperboy · 2013-01-06, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Beerbeer

I remember reading an article about swg where he reportedly blamed the players for not liking the game and ruining it.

I thought to myself, huh?

It's like making cars and blaming the consumer because no one is buying it. Sony will make a car with six wheels because Sony knows it's better than four, then promptly blame everyone else for not realizing it's better, infuriated it's not selling well. I'm being facetious of course, but this is what it feels like sometimes based on some of their decisions.

Indeed, thats the thought process of smedley.

Crator · 2013-01-06, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Paperboy

I hope you're right, but so far my pessimistic thoughts have been confirmed again and again and again, this game has so much potential, too bad it is being wasted with so many annoying funstopping bugs.

Even with bugs everyone knows are all over the forums and yet the moderators tell us to make a support ticket while some bugs have been going for months, unacceptable, it's like they have their heads in the sand.

Totally agree. IMO, SOE needs to listen more. Maybe they are but just taking their time to gather substantial info and putting it together in a plan that allows them to make the right changes. They are the game developers. They have a 3 year plan (although we don't know what is contained in it) so perhaps we the players just don't have enough info to make an appropriate suggestion for solutions. ~shrug~

FreeSpeech · 2013-01-06, 06:37 PM

(1) Fix the bases so you can't spawn camp them - i.e. how about putting some MORE spawnpoints in?!

(2) Fix Reavers so they are actually competitive with other factions, they suck royal at the moment and their rockets/guns do next to no damage.

(3) Ban the hackers!!! Seriously a Vanu guy was able to take 4 direct shells from a Bulldog today and anti-tank kill my Sunderer. I'm sorry but blatant hacks like that ruin the game.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-06, 06:40 PM

You know who I really blame? The early, early alpha/beta people who didn't throw a fit when the bases were changed, as I believe they were more stout and protected at some point during development based on reports from Sony's forum. I saw a picture of a base in ps2's skin that looked good, a beefed up ps1.

Just getting tired and more cynical of some of things that seem so obvious to me. What the hell was their reason for the change? Could it be something sinister and not game related at all as these changes were made to prevent/hide limits to their forelight game engine? I have no idea, but it was and is a poor decision, whoever made it.

Palerion · 2013-01-06, 06:40 PM

I don't know what Planetside 1 was like, but I do see what you mean about the vehicles raping everything. I get so tired of being pummeled by a liberator, rocket podded, or sniped by a tank every time I exit the spawn room. I also think more close quarters combat in bases would be nice, but that's just me. I personally get tired of so much openness, where there seems to be two giant walls of people shooting at each other. It would be nice to have more areas that catered to tactical gameplay (aside from biodomes), with more cover and obstacles.

Legolas · 2013-01-06, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

And you know this because...

Because of that infamous Mosquito screenshot where we can see a defensible base on Ishundar, pre-beta, and yet they and completely redesigned them to be these lackluster lego pieces we have now. Why did they do this?

Because they put shield generators outside the actual base which is like putting locks on the outside of a house; moreover it appears to show a deep-rooted lack of sense in their current design philosophy, alot like single player MBTs does. I can let most things slide by, but others are just too much.

And because PS1 had defensible bases and they either misunderstand or abhor anything remotely to do with that game even where it worked. Even when it did not work.

Afew other things I've noticed:

- They have led to spawn camping by MBTs.
- They can leave you feeling unsatisfied when attacking and frustrated when defending. Less emotional connection.
- They render all the work put into buildings rather useless when people breeze by them, as scenery and nothing else.
- They undermine the offensive side of the game (as in, no defense aids the ghost-cap problem etc).
- They punish smaller outfits (20-40 people).
- They encourage the uber-zerg problem.
- The Crown (defensible!) is more popular than other places (because it works as an actual base?)
- They make some things like mines and engineer turrets useless for defense.