It is as i feared... no deploy zones. - Page 3

Falcon_br · 2013-07-11, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by SternLX

Nott AMP Station no deploy is NOT working. You can still deploy an AMS Sundie inside the Shielded area. Just found that out the hard way. Pansy NC taking advantage of it.

Facility/ Environmental Updates

Sunderer No Deploy Zones
Facilities and Outposts on Indar and Amerish now have Sunderer No Deploy Zones.
These function just like the No Deploy Radius around allied deployed Sunderers
These zones prevent someone from parking a Sunderer right on top of a capture point, forcing players to fight to the capture points on foot

Sorry, it was my bad, there are no NDS on Esamir.

Timithos · 2013-07-12, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by SternLX

Nott AMP Station no deploy is NOT working. You can still deploy an AMS Sundie inside the Shielded area. Just found that out the hard way. Pansy NC taking advantage of it.

Amp Station no-deploy zones are working, it's just that for some reason they placed a small 75-80 meter diameter zone centered between the main spawn room and the capture point. Attackers can deploy their sundy closer to the capture point then the defender's distance from their spawn room

Mustarde · 2013-07-11, 03:01 PM

Yesterday on Mattherson there was a big fight at Zurvan. It was held by TR, but the VS were heavy on the point.

BWC loaded up 3 gals and dropped on the roof. Knowing that they couldn't put a sundy in the center room, we breached the point, with maxes, AV grenades and other assorted infantry units. We cleared the point with relative ease and supporting zerg were able to kill the handful of sunderers nearby, in addition to repairing a shield gen. It was the easiest resecure of an amp station that I have ever had, and the fight was very heavy (well over two platoons on each side).

So I'm willing to sit back and see how this plays out, but from what I can see, it makes amp stations VERY easy to defend, now that you can't load the vehicle bay with sunderers.

NewSith · 2013-07-11, 07:04 PM

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.

Timithos · 2013-07-12, 02:43 AM

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.

Rivenshield · 2013-07-14, 02:46 PM

It's like we got the old Sphere Of Influence back, but it's designed to fuck the defenders over...

Stardouser · 2013-07-14, 04:41 PM

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.

Greenthy · 2013-07-14, 05:00 PM

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.

**Malorn** · 2013-07-15, 11:21 AM

For those that missed the hotfix notes a few days ago, the NDZs no longer affect defenders.

DviddLeff · 2013-07-15, 01:13 PM

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.

raw · 2013-07-15, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

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.

Everything should be tied to generators! On a more serious note I don't think that NDZs would make the best generatorable mechanic.

**Malorn** · 2013-07-15, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

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.

The purpose of the NDZs is to ensure timing between defender spawns and attacker spawns and prevent checkmate moves to capture a base by putting a spawn point directly on top of it or between the defender spawn and the capture point. Distance to travel from a spawn is a force multiplier and NDZs standardize it and give a clear defender advantage (which is why it doesn't affect defenders).

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.

Wargrim · 2013-07-16, 02:27 PM

Not having the no deploy zone stop the placement of defensive sundies is a good change / fix. At least now the system should work to the benefit of the defenders. But i still believe that it is too artificial, and not a good system. The new, promising looking defensible base designs for Esamir seem to be a much more natural and fitting approach.

SerethiX · 2013-07-21, 04:25 AM

I think the problem is, you often don't have enough warriors to defend the control points AND the sunderer, that gets as much attention as the control points

SerethiX - www.serethi.de

Baneblade · 2013-07-21, 10:29 AM

Sunderers only really need one or two dedicated defenders for most scenarios. Rarely is there a concentrated assault on a Sunderer. Two people can easily dispatch most of the threats to a Sunderer and keep it repaired under fire. Now if two isn't sufficient, you are going to lose it anyway. I tend to guard my Sunderers solo and I do kill a lot of would be Sunderer killers. It might blow up eventually, but for each person you killed trying to kill it, that is one less Sunderer to worry about replacing.