Boundaries - Page 11

Razicator · 2012-06-01, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Hmr85

Nobody is asking to fly way out into the middle of the ocean... I even stated back near the beginning of this that only being aloud to go 200 meters out past the coast line would be a great compromise. The whole point of the boundaries thread was to express concern at how close the boundaries are now. SOE needs to make use of the entire continent allowing us access to the coast. Because assaulting from the water was a valid tactic along with a avenue of skirting around op4 undetected. Especially if you where running ops.

If SOE is so worried about idlers sitting out there then cut off resources generated once you have crossed over into the ocean. Use the coast as a soft border. SOE could even go as far as disconnecting clients that have set idle for more than X amount of minutes in the same position.

I can see Higby's point of view though. Ever play Alterac Valley in WoW? Half of everyone's team would be idling. There were mechanisms for kicking out idlers and reporting them, but it would never work because exploiters would always be a step ahead with automation. I don't see it being different in PS2. If resources are gained automatically over a period, then I can definitely see it being possible that idlers become a big issue. You can't just set afk people to be kicked; there are programs out there that anybody can access to do so many complex things for you.

SpcFarlen · 2012-06-01, 08:40 PM

Stopping idelers just seems to be a moot issue. Ive created macros to get around it, in games where there are server queues but i need to do something for 15 mins. Ya i was that person running around and jumping for hours for no apparent reason, it was a macro.

Though i think a sound argument (devil's advocate) for not having an open area around the map is so there is a more defined front line. Sure people can come over and take an interior base or outpost but it will need more planning than just "oh lets load up 2 galaxy's and take some reavers". But i liked that...

With the system in place where capturing these bases/outposts behind enemy lines takes so much longer, i dont really see why that is an issue.

I do think with beta a lot of things will change.

Blackwolf · 2012-06-01, 08:47 PM

So either you guys have to fly a strait line, or curve around over miles of ocean. Is that it?

Never mind that you could use scouts and basic tactics to find a calm clear and relatively easy path from point A to point B while minimizing the risk of detection. The fact that you can't all but eliminate it is a plus in my book.

SgtMAD · 2012-06-01, 08:49 PM

I promise that if idlers become a problem or we start seeing anyone out over the water we will shoot them down ASAP

Hmr85 · 2012-06-01, 08:54 PM

I'm going to need to take a break from this thread. My head is hurting to much. It is apparent to me quite a few of you have never run spec ops and that quite a few of you have missed the point of the entire thread and or need to go back and read it from the beginning. Nobody is asking to fly miles out into the ocean.

SpcFarlen · 2012-06-01, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

So either you guys have to fly a strait line, or curve around over miles of ocean. Is that it?

Never mind that you could use scouts and basic tactics to find a calm clear and relatively easy path from point A to point B while minimizing the risk of detection. The fact that you can't all but eliminate it is a plus in my book.

Why not both? There is a trade off for both of them in terms of time and predictability.

Smokingrabbit · 2012-06-02, 01:32 AM

i agree with op. Back hack has always been part of ps. It is totally lagit in a sandbox shooter. If the point is to focus us all into a meat grinder then why have a full continent up for contention. The hex system is set up to provide defenders more time to respond. Those who find this sort of thing boring can stick to the heavyest fighting. I also thought they wanted us to spread out more and fight over more then one or two bases. With 1800+ fighters on a map 6 bases under full attack will be massive battles. Remember 300 men fighting for 1 base in ps? those fights were insane! Alowing afew flanking runs will give a scence of individual and small squad importance in a large scale effort.
Borders will only stiffel strategy.

Captain1nsaneo · 2012-06-02, 02:18 AM

The no XP boundary won't work and here's why: Anytime someone is near it and losing a dogfight they will run for it to deny any benefits from their death. We had the same thing in PS with people carrying ways to kill themselves if they lost duels.

In addition, every scout and every gal is going to use it. If someone is going to idle they'd probably do it out there as there's no incentive to kill them and if you did get into a fight then you'd just be easier for someone else to kill when you got back into the hexes so there's actually incentives to not fight which is the LAST thing we want.

Don't box away parts of the game just because there's no obvious use to them. We'll find a use for it, we always do, it's part of the fun.

shadow58 · 2012-06-02, 09:13 AM

Agreed, I think the borders should be over the sea not arbitrarily stuck over some hills a stone's throw from a capturable outpost.

If only cause it seems more natural and obvious that way.

Shamrock · 2012-06-02, 09:33 AM

Agree with OP they should be removed or repositioned a few hex's out to sea; flying a fully loaded GAL along the coast was a common tactic to avoid enemy aircav for as long as possible, it would be a shame to lose this option to transport your squad.

As for idlers, squad kick was good enough for dealing with them, other than that they were free kills for any passing aircav if out in the open.

ITOS · 2012-06-02, 11:08 AM

I don't like boundaries. I see why they have them but I'd prefer another solution.

Just my two cents.