Game Feedback: Its Boring. :/

[Figment]

When time is concerned, people talking about boredom when it takes too long always look at it from a perspective that doesn't consider how much time logistics, planning and response costs.

You have to consider time and preparation and planning. A ps1 fight takes hours, you don't hop in for five minutes, you commit to "taking that next base". As a resec team, the time you spend out of action is regrouping (convincing people out of other action), planning the best route, traveling and then fighting, rehacking and in ps2 capture mechanics holding and interpoint traveling is added, setting up spawnpoints, etc.


Super short timers don't allow that to happen. This type of game simply needs it. CE at least kept people busy with a worthwhile thing to do.


People shouldn't whine about downtime, because that allows battles to be so much better when they occur.

[Rockit]

Has there been anything more said about events? Also, LLU/CTF type capture mechanic would be nice feature to see.

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by RobUK

There was a post on the official forums about the endless vehicle spam. It's something that I also feel strongly about and I dearly wish some kind of resource was consumed each time a base constructed a vehicle for somebody. Adding the need to replensih that resource would add some much needed logistics to the game. Being able to deny the enemy the chance to replenish bases would be a whole new and badly needed layer of gameplay.

Perhaps the bases themselves would have pools of resources that would get depleted, and slowly replenish, just as ours do. 10,000-20,000 vehicle resources each, maybe.

Originally Posted by RobUK

The replenishment vehicle doesn't have to be called an Ant and the resource doesn't have to be Nanites, so the dev's wouldn't have to feel that they're bowing down to the imaginary "we want Planetside 1.5" movement.

I really wish this group of developers would be bold enough to try out some of the original PS1 mechanics in PS2. Planetside 1 seems to be such a taboo thing with those guys for some reason.

I know that feel, brother. We don't want the old game; we want the elements that functioned well in it imported if applicable... and a lot of them are.

I decided to check in last night, and lo! there were decent pops to be had on Connery/Indar (the other two continents were lifeless). I was happy enough not to mind the attendant distance-rendering issues. Where were all three empires gathered? The Crown, naturally. Two hours of pushing and shoving and counter-attacking and losing and winning and mowing down waves of each other.

At some point, we all had a /yelling five-minute conversation about it, and -- between the usual faction insults -- most seemed to agree that base defensibility was the reason we were here... and within that, I recall the following exchange:

Disgruntled lone NC: Why are we here all the time? Not worth it strategically.
Other NC: It's the only fun fight in the game.
Me: Can you imagine the fun we'd have if half the bases were this defensible?
VS: What the fascist said.

It made me LOL. But it also highlighted the point. Defense is FUN. Attacking a defensible base that comprises a serious challenge is FUN. Fending off a superior force or storming a place that took a difficult hour to get into -- that moment of fierce exultation -- is FUN. It's not 'farming'; it's... well, how many times do I need to say it?

Malorn groks all of this. I'm not sure anyone else does. I like Higby a helluva lot -- doesn't everybody? -- but his esports bias and the way it's visibly played out in-game makes me wince. It was like pulling teeth to get the AMS back. How long before we get the rest...? And do these horrifying rumors of the Gal-as-spawn-point making a return have anything to them?

We'll just see. I'll repeat yet again: Beginning of summer vacation is make or break. If we have a few more defensible bases and a decent metagame by then, I think we're in good shape.

[Rockit]

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

Defense is FUN.

Rewarding is another good word for it. Just simply rolling over base after base offers little sense of achievement (a.k.a. boredom). We don't need crown type fortresses everywhere but certainly there is plenty of middle ground that needs to be found and exploited profusely. Get people into fights which offer some semblance of a protracted fight and once they finally cap that facility it will have some meaning to them and thus perhaps the overall game.

[Tatwi]

Decided to play for a couple of hours for the first time since before Christmas. Nothing has changed. People, as in large groups of people, seem to purposely avoid fighting each other and that's a player driven choice, which pretty damned sad. A couple times, for a few minutes, I had a decent infantry fight, but each of them quickly devolved into vehicles farming kills, because (as we've said for months) there's really no way to stop or defend against that in most locations.

As much as the game play systems have their problems, it's important to consider the actions of the people who are playing it. I don't understand why people are choosing to play the way they do (in giant zerg waves that wash over empty and lightly defended bases, but never an enemy zerg of the same magnitude).

There's no Planetside in this. The people who are playing it don't even try to have the spirit of Planetside and the game, obviously, doesn't foster that spirit either. I am sad to say, this game feels and plays like any other "shooter game", except with a lot more down time and moments of complete futility. Not a winning combination, that.



Also, hit detection is kind of random. I think I got 4 or 5 head shots out 15 kills and, as always, I was simply spraying people's general direction. Well, except for that easy sniper kill on the guy who stood in the spawn room door way for a while and then stepped through and stood on the outside. Oops, you was not alone!

[BlueSkies]

Originally Posted by Tatwi

Decided to play for a couple of hours for the first time since before Christmas. Nothing has changed. People, as in large groups of people, seem to purposely avoid fighting each other and that's a player driven choice, which pretty damned sad. A couple times, for a few minutes, I had a decent infantry fight, but each of them quickly devolved into vehicles farming kills, because (as we've said for months) there's really no way to stop or defend against that in most locations.

This was very common in PS1 until two things were changed:

• The Lattice System - Limited number of places to attack
• Capture Experience - Facility capture experience changed to be dependent upon presence (and amount) of defending soldiers for the 10 minutes prior to the hack being initiated and the 15 minutes of the hack. No defenders, no EXP.

Before these changes went in, it was common (and not unreasonable) for armies to just circle each other on conts to get that sweet sweet capture XP.

[basti]

Well, gotta get rid of capture XP then.

Lets push that ahead first.

[Mox]

I dont think the factions dont want to fight each other but they dont meet on the battlefield.
With so many capture points it is not likly that the forces are at the same time at the same place.

Solution->reduce capture points or/and introduce the lattice

[basti]

Originally Posted by Mox

I dont think the factions dont want to fight each other but they dont meet on the battlefield.
With so many capture points it is not likly that the forces are at the same time at the same place.

Solution->reduce capture points or/and introduce the lattice

Its not that they miss each other by chance, they miss each other because they just push ahead without trying to find each other.

Reducing the amount of capture points could help there, same with the lattice, but that causes other problems.

It think it would be easier just to give folks more reason to actually engange each other. The best way to do this is by encouraging defending a lot. Once you defend a point, you will also push torwards the enemy, causing the defender to become the attacker. The real problem is that once you actually captured a point, the defender went elsewhere, potentially split across. We need something that makes sure that the pushed back defenders know where to go, and where to spawn. Lattice did that wonderfully, less hexes would propably do that as well, but a simple "Priority target" would likley also help.

What about enhancing the "defend request" thing for squad leaders, giving them not just a icon on the map, but actually allowing them to mark a specific hex and making it the priority spawn location for everyone within a certain distance?
So, you get pushed back, loose the hex your defending, someone sets up another hex to defend, and everyone knows: thats where I should be, everyone else is gonna be there, and its very likley the enemy attacks there in just a sec.

Its pretty much a dynamic lattice in player hands.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by basti

Well, gotta get rid of capture XP then.

Lets push that ahead first.

PS1 had it right with both capture XP and resecure XP but both dependant on and proportional to the presence of enemy.

This incentivises larger fights and defensive resecures and de-incentivises ghost hacking, except for tactical reasons, which is fine.

Of course there need to be a few other changes such as hack timers and map information changes.

[Crator]

@Basti If you keep the amount of attack options (hexes) then how could a commander marking just a single hex to defend help the defense? Aren't you still in the same boat we are in now?

In PS1, it wasn't only the lattice that dictated where to defend. It was a factor, yes. But for the majority I think defended locations were more reliant on the spawn system. *The spawn system also dictated where the majority would attack as well. Path of least resistance was a big factor in PS1.

[Beerbeer]

It's not rocket science, it's just so much easier to vehicle camp then it is to defend.

Remember the tech plants one patch ago. A clan use to always setup shop in one and it was fun trying it dig them out as much as it was to defend them. Battles raged for hours until they were finally overwhelmed.

Sony didn't like that. They didn't like the fact that people got out of their vehicles so they changed it.

That's what this game is, a vehicle game. Infantry play is window dressing and if you think otherwise, you're sorely mistaken.

Give us defendable bases, remove the vehicle equation from all bases and outposts and people will defend. If outposts remain the same, no one will defend those either beyond what they currently do.

[basti]

Originally Posted by Beerbeer

It's not rocket science, it's just so much easier to vehicle camp then it is to defend.

Remember the tech plants one patch ago. A clan use to always setup shop in one and it was fun trying it dig them out as much as it was to defend them. Battles raged for hours until they were finally overwhelmed.

Sony didn't like that. They didn't like the fact that people got out of their vehicles so they changed it.

That's what this game is, a vehicle game. Infantry play is window dressing and if you think otherwise, you're sorely mistaken.

Give us defendable bases, remove the vehicle equation from all bases and outposts and people will defend. If outposts remain the same, no one will defend those either beyond what they currently do.

Will you stop posting your crap all over this thread already? You said it several times, we ignored it several times, because its BS.

Vehicles can be dealt with, they are no problem during attack or defense. Bases need ways to avoid vehicles clearly, but we are getting that with the next patch.

You cant remove vehicles out of the equation, couldnt do that in PS1 cant do that in PS2. This entire thread is about a different issue anyway, and has nothing to do with the exact layout of bases. So please, stop posting...

[Beerbeer]

You assume a lot.

[Beerbeer]

Based on what?