Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
PSU: Your back door to the future.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #31 | |||
Sergeant
|
Also if you have nothing constructive to add keep it to yourself. I don't wanna hear it. Unlike Falcon_br who took the time to point out I missed the part in the Patch notes (that I missed on first read through) that No Deploy is only implemented on Indar and Amerish. Thank you Falcon_br. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #32 | ||
No-Deploy zones on AMP Stations just allow for AMSes to be placed in proper locations of strategical value. Because all a Friendly AMS inside a V-Bay does is makes it hell of an effort to get anywhere in the courtyard and prevents other AMSes from deploying somewhere more convinient for the spawners.
That's in theory. Last edited by NewSith; 2013-07-11 at 06:06 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #34 | |||
Master Sergeant
|
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #35 | ||
Master Sergeant
|
So I tried out the no-deploy zones yesterday and today. I was the attacker in my Sundy. I noticed on a few outposts that the zone was off center from the capture point. So I kept reporting it as a bug. Then I realized they did this on purpose by centering the zone midway between the spawn room and the capture point. Mind you that the no-deploy zone on non-major facilities is about 75-80 meters in diameter. What it allowed me to do was deploy my Sundy within 35 meters of the capture points, while the defender's spawn room was 70-100+ meters away. GAME OVER. Attacker wins.
Sunderer's generally are not the vehicles that camp spawn rooms. EVERY ELSE camps spawn rooms, while the sunderer provides a steady stream of infantry to camp the spawn room from a further, safe, concealed distance away. What sunderers more often are doing is getting as close to the capture point as possible, and on the opposite side of the spawn room (At least the intelligent sundy drivers do this.) The no-deploy zones need to be centered on the capture point. If you really are concerned about this zone surrounding the spawn room, you can make a separate no-deploy zone even. I'm disappointed that SOE made the no-deploy zones for defenders also. In my opinion this should have been only done for attackers in order to bring some semblance of meaning and defensibility to facility ownership. Defenders have had their advantages stripped away mainly since March mostly in the name of esport/MLG. Hopefully the Nexus will alleviate wrecked base design in the name of esports. As it stands now, attackers can get their sundies much closer to the capture point at most facilities, even at an Amp Station. Game Over. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #36 | ||
Contributor Major
|
It's like we got the old Sphere Of Influence back, but it's designed to fuck the defenders over...
![]()
__________________
No XP for capping empty bases -- end the ghost-zerg! 12-hour cooldown timers on empire swaps -- death to the 4th Empire! |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #37 | ||
Colonel
|
attacking zerg forces have always been fully supported by short sighted base design...for outposts at least. Large facilities...you tell me, but outposts have always been designed to allow a few tanks or a bunch of infantry to camp the spawn room, and with engineers/vehicle regen, and medics, it's difficult for a small force to even inflict a single loss on the attackers.
Last edited by Stardouser; 2013-07-14 at 03:42 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #38 | ||
Sergeant
|
Our outfit also can not see the clear benefit of having no deploy zones, other than making it very hard to get one in a decent spot. Bases just aren't designed for these no deploy zones. Some bases you can put one behind a building /rock in cover, others you have to leave them out in the open...
(with cover slighly away) I don't see why we need this though. Breaking a hold on a facility was rewarding either on attacking or defending side with getting an AMS deployed/destroyed. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #40 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Malorn, I presume that tying the no deploy zone to a generator was considered? Any reasons why it was not implemented - personally I think it would add some great depth to the game and more targets for squads.
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #41 | |||
Sergeant
|
Everything should be tied to generators! On a more serious note I don't think that NDZs would make the best generatorable mechanic. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #42 | |||
Corporal
|
You could have one for no deploy zone, Have them for all the vehicle shields again (last time I played I could swear they were still missing at Dahaka), Have a generator for the tunnel gravity accelerators. And please god have a generator for the upcoming base shields! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
[Ignore Me] #43 | |||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
If we give the ability to disable the NDZ then we have three issues. 1) More places for a defender to defend, which makes it harder for them, especially if outnumbered. 2) If the NDZ is dropped, the fight is basically over since the attackers can now magnify their force even more. And if they managed to take out the generator then they probably already have more than the defender. 3) The ability for defenders to recover the situation is severely reduced, as now they not only have to secure the point and remove the AMS, but they must also retake the generator. It's effectively more win for a winning side and a pure defender disadvantage to do that. By not having them removable we ensure consistency of spawn distance and give defenders better chances against a numerical superior opponent and better chances at recovering. The fact that defenders can place AMS inside the NDZ means there's more objectives: For the attacker, the objective is kill the defensive AMS. For the defender the objective is to place them. Once those are gone the playing field from a spawn distance standpoint is even. Attackers have flexibility in spawn placement while defenders have the ability to fortify with closer spawns. Generally speaking all of the NDZs should be roughly the distance from the defender spawn to the objective(s). They are custom to every outpost due to every outpost being different, so we may have some outposts that need tweaking if isn't quite right. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #44 | ||||
Major
|
1) There is a sort of false equivalency between the defender spawn and the attacker spawn. The defender spawn is invulnerable and (for the most part), allows players to shoot from within. The attacker spawn is very vulnerable and easy to take out. Hence if it blows, the action stops abruptly severely disrupting the battleflow. Under a 1:1 combat strength ratio, spawn camping is not really a problem since the attackers have to look out for both the control points and the sunderer spawn, while the defenders only have to concentrate on the control points. 2) Sunderers can't simply be parked out in the open. The primary pressure for sundererer placement is not just proximity to the spawn but getting a good cover. The current base base designs doesn't provide enough of these covers. If the Sundy has 10x the HP (just saying, not that they should have), then yes, they can be parked out there. But atm, park a Sundy exposed and it will go down so fast. 3) Under a 2:1 attacker:defender ratio, the spawn will be camped regardless, with air and tanks to boot. Just on Ti alloy alone, the south spawn door can be effectively locked down by Prowlers spamming HE from the SW ( I can already hear the Prowler spammers from Waterson chuckling ![]() The issue at hand is more of spawn camping and base design that is conducive to that spawn camping. Hence, trying to solve those with a NDZ is not the applicable approach. The simplest solution to problems introduced by the NDZ, as we've been discussing before, is tying the generator the NDZ. I don't think the NDZ alleviates spawn camping. Spawn camping happens when attackers have the advantage of air, mechanized and foot soldier numbers (bombarding defending players with stacked DPS as they exit the spawn). The best solution imo is the Jamming Sunderer. I obviously don't know if that can be implemented or feasible to the Devs but just throwing it out there. My feedback from another thread:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #45 | |||
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|