Huge Outfits and PlanetSide 2 - Page 14

Sledgecrushr · 2012-12-21, 12:33 PM

I agree that small outposts should be more defensible. Air and vehicle spam in these outposts really favor the fresh incoming attackers with vehicles.

Stanis · 2012-12-21, 01:12 PM

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)

Resources need a logistical role that the enemy can exploit.
Currently its dominant empire gets more resources, dominates more.
To answer a later point - I don't think vehicles should cost more. Just flat out making something more expensive would be artificial introduced because of a perceived problem - not a solution to the problem.
By this I mean that a play also has the cert investment in vehicles. They have a limiting timer, also the terrain and layout of bases in how they are used. These are tactical limits.

In a later post you mention the presence of enemy vehicles in PS1 courtyards. True, the were camped. However this had far less influence on the subsequent infantry combat. With the exception of the Bio Lab gen on the roof - which was a key small outfit target for attack or defence - key infantry actions inside remained mostly unaffected by vehicles.
Defence multiplers or defender advantage aside - PS2 should never have allowed vehicle/combined arms into virtually all areas of every major base.

Give the timers and terrain as tactical limits on vehicles and resource expenditure what we are missing is strategic limits.
Resources should effect vehicle costs in the same way NTU drain did in PS1. We must be able to cut off the accumulation of resources - irrespective of the fact that 80% of the map is <color>.
Most hexes have little actual purpose if they don't contain a base. Those outposts and towers provide fairly generic facilities.
They should have comms towers, shield arrays, listening posts, observation points.
Every facility should have a benefit or pass-it-on.

If we knock out the comms array two hexes away from the warpgate - resources arent getting handed out. no intel is provided on the map.
The shield generator array next to the amp station should be a "capital" style shield around a base or one that is only passable in a few locations.

These are strategic targets that allow for logistics based warfare rather than "kill zerg". A 30 man outfit defending or attacking a comms arrray can swing a fight - and a 30 man outfit can fast respond or ignore it at their peril.

The hex system is here a nightmare. There are few 'bottlenecks' that the lattice created. It is almost impossible to cut off or isolate without already dominating.

Territory capture needs to be exploited.
In the sense that right now every territory is captured the same way.
Strategies will only evolve when mutliple options exist, and bases are different.
We need both the return of different capture types, but the introduction of options.
There is no "hold" possible. To introduce "hack and hold" is what many of us want. When that is viable and a last minute resecure achievable - many of us will be happy.
Hack and hold. LLU/CTF. Ticket Race (what we had most of Beta). Ticket Contest (what we have now).
Then we need ways to adjust or change this.
When hack starts - one of the nearest enemy comms array starts. By taking and holding that they convert Ticket Contest to "ticket race" for their empire.
You can now either: resecure the base itself. stop enemy tacking your comm array. go for the enemy comm array.
Or the enemy took out your associated shield hexs. By recapturing that hex you exclude enemy air from the base, restore internal 'blast shields' and make it possible to clear room-to-room.

Instead of LLU runs. Flip it around. How about the simply ability to bring a "control virus" from warpgate to a base. Replaces the AMS on a Sunderer. Only spawns at warpgate. Puts drive speed at 70%. When it enters a base SOI it gives you a +20% cap rate.
Oh yes - and every intel grid on the continent detects it and makes you a bright big shiny target on the map.

Interlink farms Were such farm. Put some stealth units in to counter the radar and intel. Then put interlink hexes that provide enhanced radar coverage/intel. You might want to neutralise those before taking a base within it's sphere of influence.

Defence does not need to reward more XP.
Defence needs to be possible. Right now it's more a case of counter-offensive or counter-attack.
I've yet to find a real bottleneck in terrain that can be held.
Virtually every bridge you can just go around, over, under or ignore.

We need both impassable terrain and ways to make an area no mans land.
Please bring back the PS1 CE model of many individual items, doing significantly less damage each. There is still boomers/c4 for the instakill wetwork - I want to deny a mountain pass not just 8m x 1m this side of the shield.

Deployment reductions? Hardly. I'd rather we could spawn everywhere - but the further away it was the longer 'respawn' time incurred.
Which suggests another hex benefit for spec ops : something that massively increases the spawn timers if not defended.
I can redeploy in 25 seconds across about 5 hexes .. so I can cross the map
in about 1min 30. Or I can /suicide and hop in 15 sec blocks.

I'd like to be able to bind at a base.
We can always spawn at a Platoon AMS.
Spawn on squad leader and the spawn beacon are enough.

I do think that for the first 12hrs of actual in-game time new players should be able to spawn wherever they want in friendly territory without timer penalty. Part of the training/familiarisation process.
(Thats per account, not for new characters!!)

Mostly I'd like to shoot whoever designed the bases.
Walls. Have merlons on the outer-edge only. This providers cover to the defenders. It means the attackers that reach the walls are in line of sight to the defenders.
Walls. For a benefit merlon gaps should have shields infantry can fire through. You have to take the walls the hard way - or the shield gen in the linked hex.

Courtyard. More of a barbican. Should be open. With foxholes. Emplacements. For the defenders to shoot and scoot.

Base. Infantry only. Spawns. Generators. They go in here. Line of Sight, Angle of Elevation. Shields. Walls. ROOF! They prevent HE rounds and carpet bombs. Part of most bases should resemble a biolab.

Malorn - hope you make use of the excellent ideas in the other posts here.

tkoreaper · 2012-12-21, 01:21 PM

I honestly don't see a problem. If you're going to be a solo squad-sized outfit then you're gonna have to play like one and do what you're capable of. You simply cannot go from territory to territory with hopes of single-handedly taking it with a small amount of people every time... It just won't happen. If you're wanting to do that then PS just isn't for you because of how large the scale is.

At the end of the day we accomplish things as an empire, not an outfit... the outfits are there to help keep some organization. This isn't like other games where it's the guilds/clans that get all the glory for their accomplishments. Learn to have fun with what you have! If you want to stay small then stay close to the zerg and/or organized outfits and support them.

maradine · 2012-12-21, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by tkoreaper

I honestly don't see a problem. If you're going to be a solo squad-sized outfit then you're gonna have to play like one and do what you're capable of. You simply cannot go from territory to territory with hopes of single-handedly taking it with a small amount of people every time... It just won't happen. If you're wanting to do that then PS just isn't for you because of how large the scale is.

I don't think that's what people are asking for. I think people are asking for tasks that are more granular than a "base fight" - something that would be an optimal use of a dozen people or so, and contributes directly or indirectly to the larger war happening around it.

For instance, making certain small facilities into "resource dumps", that when destroyed, subtract 200 from the holding empire's individual pools. This is important enough to send a squad after, and important enough to send a squad to continuously defend, but not a good use of an entire outfit's energy (though they could of course subtask this easily). Only an example, but illustrative of the kinds of things I'm seeing desired here. I don't think anyone wants to be able to take a sqaud and go toe-to-toe with Enclave, or do the sorts of things that only a force of that size can do.

MrBloodworth · 2012-12-21, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by tkoreaper

I honestly don't see a problem. If you're going to be a solo squad-sized outfit then you're gonna have to play like one and do what you're capable of. You simply cannot go from territory to territory with hopes of single-handedly taking it with a small amount of people every time... It just won't happen. If you're wanting to do that then PS just isn't for you because of how large the scale is.

At the end of the day we accomplish things as an empire, not an outfit... the outfits are there to help keep some organization. This isn't like other games where it's the guilds/clans that get all the glory for their accomplishments. Learn to have fun with what you have! If you want to stay small then stay close to the zerg and/or organized outfits and support them.

Stop posting.

Tatwi · 2012-12-21, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Punker

100% endorse robo's post. Hit the nail on the head.

I agree, that covered everything i had to say.

Since beta I wondered why SOE never made use of the underground doorway art assets to lead into actaul underground facilities. Ti Alloys could connect to The Crown, Crossroads, and Zurvan, with some interesting facilities and capture points underground as well as paths to move troops on foot to different locations. I posted this months ago -they could even have environmental barrier, like gas leaks, that can be caused and repaired by any side, as ways to effect traffic though the tunnels (and that sort of thing).

Side note, I was sad to see KrakenOne, a fellow SWG vet, being such a douche. "go play something else", is not a valid statement to make towards Hamma or the good majority of people who post here. PSU is where those who have been invested in the franchise for years go to talk. If they don't like something, that something is wrong. Many others will come and go, but the PSU community will remain the integral core of PS2, so given their experience in PS1, their staying power, qne their open pocket books, it would be wise to take their feedback to heart, even if it does not make sense to you. Simply put, PSU knows better.

tkoreaper · 2012-12-21, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

I don't think that's what people are asking for. I think people are asking for tasks that are more granular than a "base fight" - something that would be an optimal use of a dozen people or so, and contributes directly or indirectly to the larger war happening around it.

For instance, making certain small facilities into "resource dumps", that when destroyed, subtract 200 from the holding empire's individual pools. This is important enough to send a squad after, and important enough to send a squad to defend, but not a good use of an entire outfit's energy (though they could of course subtask this easily). Only an example, but illustrative of the kinds of things I'm seeing desired here. I don't think anyone wants to be able to take a sqaud and go toe-to-toe with Enclave, or do the sorts of things that only a force of that size can do.

We can all sit here and talk about adding in features/gameplay that only need the use of a small amount of people, but the reality is that at the end of the day the more people there are the more efficient that objective is completed... There's nothing to say it will be easier or quicker because that is subjective to the amount of resistance.

If you implement an objective that requires 12 people to take out a target or stand at a point then that's cool, but the second you add ANY form of resistance it will become more beneficial to have more numbers... plain and simple.

I cannot fathom an idea where an objective could be created in which the resistance isn't an issue simply because 1. The objective need some beneficial purpose to even make it worth doing and 2. The enemy will always want to prevent you from accomplishing anything that is beneficial to you. The developers would have to create instances where the amount of people is highly restrictive to cater to this kind of small scale gameplay and I just don't see that happening.

Kail · 2012-12-21, 01:40 PM

I know many people before have posted about outposts having benefits, but I wonder how merging that concept with something like LLU's (if that's the PS1 thing you could move between bases, its been awhile) would work out. For example, consider three boosts:

Shielding, Cooling, and Heating.

Each one can be applied to an interactable object (generator, turret, SCU) and control points. On interactable objects they last until replaced or the object is destroyed, and on points until the base flips / replaced.

Shielding provides engineer-turret like shields on turrets, on generators more or less doubles the time defenders have to resecure (as the overload must break the shield first), and on control points provides artillery shielding in a tastefully sized globe around it.
Cooling reduces the buildup of heat on turrets, makes generators require at least one attacker to stay nearby or it self-stabalizes, and passive health regen near control points.
Heating increases fire rate for turrets, allows defenders to near-instantly stabilize generators, and increases the flip rate of control points for defenders.

Only three, so its easy for a player to quickly get a handle on the options. Now the devious part: They can only be picked up at outposts, and doing so replaces your weapons.

Controlling adjacent territories isn't required, but helps because you can supply boosts quicker and safer. What boosts to apply where could add interesting strategy, and since boost are tied to points / turrets / generators, having a large squad doesn't help (except for having a bunch of people standing around worthlessly for when things get destroyed.

Anyway, just a random musing I had today while hopped up on cold medicine.

Figment · 2012-12-21, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

if I recall correctly the respawn rate is exactly the same for everyone, barring certification of course.

Sledge, when you make comments like this on a very regular basis, it's clear you don't understand what numbers do.

That's because you're in a zergfit. You have so many numbers that attrition doesn't matter anymore to you. Small outfits see this, because even if ONE of your people is put on a timer, 20 others just got off their timer.

The small outfit ONLY sees that you keep bringing new vehicles on top of the pile of vehicles already there.

I saw someone comment to use smaller transport units etc. That does nothing for small groups. What helps is bring down the sheer numerical spam of things. FORCIBLY CREWED VEHICLES (no seat switching either!) would help small units MUCH MORE.

Why? Because one crew tank is much easier to deal with than three solo tanks, simply because you need say 6-9 rockets to kill the one, not 15-27, the rate of fire towards the small units would be smaller as well.

But zergfit crews don't see that. This is one of the main reasons we've always said crewed vehicles are a must. It's not "more fun", because you're ruining the fun of others by bringing way too many solo units.

p0intman · 2012-12-21, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by tkoreaper

We can all sit here and talk about adding in features/gameplay that only need the use of a small amount of people, but the reality is that at the end of the day the more people there are the more efficient that objective is completed... There's nothing to say it will be easier or quicker because that is subjective to the amount of resistance.

If you implement an objective that requires 12 people to take out a target or stand at a point then that's cool, but the second you add ANY form of resistance it will become more beneficial to have more numbers... plain and simple.

I cannot fathom an idea where an objective could be created in which the resistance isn't an issue simply because 1. The objective need some beneficial purpose to even make it worth doing and 2. The enemy will always want to prevent you from accomplishing anything that is beneficial to you. The developers would have to create instances where the amount of people is highly restrictive to cater to this kind of small scale gameplay and I just don't see that happening.

unless it was a new cont, like caverns in which armor and liberators couldn't go.

Figment · 2012-12-21, 01:57 PM

If you want to somehow restrict large outfits more than smaller outfits in terms of resources, you could go do that in an extremely drastic manner and have outfit resource rates, rather than personal rates.

Of course, most big outfits would just split up into smaller sister outfits to reap the benefits anyway.

p0intman · 2012-12-21, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

If you want to somehow restrict large outfits more than smaller outfits in terms of resources, you could go do that in an extremely drastic manner and have outfit resource rates, rather than personal rates.

Of course, most big outfits would just split up into smaller sister outfits to reap the benefits anyway.

Can't be a mechanic like that. Its just easy to be gamed to have an artificial ceiling where effectiveness mechanically drops off the face of a cliff. Instead, objectives where it isn't cost/time effective to devote large numbers to unless the enemy is dead set on taking it back and must drop the hammer on it. Its more about discouraging through subtlety the large zergs rather than outright saying FUCK YOU. Leave them to their own part of the game, and maybe center searhus, oshur and hossin on smaller scale warfare type stuff where armor and aircraft aren't as effective.

any mechanic needs to be developed with the fact that players are infinitely more clever than a set of developers ever can be, and if it can be gamed, it will be, in ways the developers don't intend or simply never thought of. So instead of creating mechanics, create a set of tools for players, and let us figure it out.

Remember how I was howling pre-beta about it being zerg side all day every day and that it was a large scale bf2/3 game? Look at where we are now. Team deathmatch-side.

MrBloodworth · 2012-12-21, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

If you want to somehow restrict large outfits more than smaller outfits in terms of resources, you could go do that in an extremely drastic manner and have outfit resource rates, rather than personal rates.

Of course, most big outfits would just split up into smaller sister outfits to reap the benefits anyway.

I don't think anyone wants to restrict large outfits, only gain more opportunity for small outfits to participate.

Hamma · 2012-12-21, 02:21 PM

Yea, what MrBloodworth said.

Hosp · 2012-12-21, 03:34 PM

Except we wouldn't be gaining it...We'd be regaining it. Remember, PS1 had it and it has yet to be implemented in PS2.