Vehicles(artillery) and economy

[Shade Millith]

As much as I wish for a dedicated Artillery unit, the Flail is not it.

Should be a manned vehicle
It needs to have flimsy, ATV like health.
Very slow moving.
Must be deployed to fire, and cannot be deployed within or even near a base.
Recoil throws your aim off, possibly even pushed backwards by the recoil. Each shot must be reaimed
Very low ROF, with a very long reload time after 3-4 shells.
Laser designator cannot be aimed into a base.

Would make it a field use weapon.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

That's what I thought, but why am I seeing "Zergs" referred to so often and why does the manifesto writer talk about understanding how they move? Now as I say, I have subscribed to station access and downloaded PS1 to run around and sample stuff, but that's all...when would a zerg form? If I had to guess, that would be, for example, when you lose a base/continent and everyone forms up for a counterattack?

Zerg would form through a critical mass of players adjusting their IQ and effort level to the lowest common denominator.

They are not a formal group, per se. They however do happen to move towards the same objective, usually the closest one. It's like a herd effect and almost every player has been part of the zerg at some point or another. Saying zerg is like saying "mainstream media".

An important CR5 skill was effective zerg sheepherding.

Zerg is usually used pejoratively but in reality, it's just about putting everyone (casuals, outfit players waiting for their outfit mates to log on, newbies, small squads following the main movement, etc...) attacking the mainstream objective in the same basket.

[DManTech]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

...when would a zerg form? If I had to guess, that would be, for example, when you lose a base/continent and everyone forms up for a counterattack?

Probably not going to see too much of a zerg in PS1 these days, I doubt there's enough population.

I remember when an empire was on a strong offensive on a continent, fighting for bases and waiting around for the capture to go through, there was definitely a large group that was pretty disorganized and would just wander over to the next base with little planning or strategy. Meanwhile, you'd see some tactically-minded squads back-hacking a key base away from the main battle, pulling AMS's to support the offensive, or other tasks that didn't involve just running at the enemy, dying, and spawning to do it all over again.

That unorganized group is the zerg, and my intuition is that it's naturally where a lot of COD (and to a lesser extent, Battlefield) types will be. Very little strategic thinking about which base to cap next, just running to where the big battle is and throwing some bullets around.

This isn't to say the zerg is bad--I'm more of a strategic player myself, and a lot of players like me will seem to look down on the zerg, but the fact is that without the zerg, we'd have a lot harder time having fun. The zerg keeps the enemy focused on a large invasion force if nothing else, leaving room for smaller squads to go unnoticed until it's too late.

[Stardouser]

Does that mean that the masses actually listen and go where they are told? I've always had this notion that at least 15% of players would be going behind lines sabotaging or raping the enemy as they came out of their bases(if that's even possible) rather than throwing themselves at defended objectives.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Does that mean that the masses actually listen and go where they are told? I've always had this notion that at least 15% of players would be going behind lines sabotaging or raping the enemy as they came out of their bases(if that's even possible) rather than throwing themselves at defended objectives.

The zerg has a mind of its own.


Now about that 15% figure, I wouldn't be able to be so precise but at some point, the fight only gets so large before a minority of players start to think (or be willing) to flank.

The zerg rarely worked around breaking stalemates. When 2-3 empire zergs collided though, it usually created a nice frontline with varying levels of intensity.

Dman is spot on when he says the "zerg" was important in creating fun for PS1.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

The zerg has a mind of its own.


Now about that 15% figure, I wouldn't be able to be so precise but at some point, the fight only gets so large before a minority of players start to think (or be willing) to flank.

The zerg rarely worked around breaking stalemates. When 2-3 empire zergs collided though, it usually created a nice frontline with varying levels of intensity.

Dman is spot on when he says the "zerg" was important in creating fun for PS1.

If it's similar in PS2, this could be the ULTIMATE teamwork. People who like meatgrinds and who come from CoD and BF3 could perform the zerg duty so that their faction teammates can do other things while they keep the enemy busy. I'm beginning to like this discussion...

In fact, if I knew enough about PS1 and Zergs to write something about it, I'd write up something post on BF's forums to get people salivating. Who would have thought that Operation Metro padders and large map lovers could ever work together?

[Aurmanite]

Zerg (Zer'geh)
-Free will
-Chaos
-Disorganization
-The meat in the ginder

[KrazeyVIII]

I could be wrong but hasn't it already been stated that the developers are trying to steer clear of anything related to artillery? I can't seem to find the source but I remember the reasoning being that they wanted combat to be engaging instead of pointing and clicking on the map.

Economy wise I don't think anyone really knows what's going on with it yet other then the fact that there is a system in place.

[Shogun]

oooh the zerg

curse and blessing.

yes,the zerg is important to the game. they form the stage for this great warmovie ;-)
they do, what the scripted ai bots do in singleplayergames. so the tactical players can have fun and pull of their special operations.
and if you´ve got some really good high commanders who manage to control the zerg to go where you want them, it gets epic. but controlling the zerg was extremely hard to do. the zerg was usually the place for all casuals and for those who just wanted to shoot at something and didn´t care about greater goals.

the zerg was like a swarm of insects that would kill everything and move on, leaving only burnt soil.it happened very often that after a base was captured by the maximum zerg and they moved on without even repairing the defence of the base, leaving it open for recapturing. sometimes even before the hack was completed, so a single mossiedropper could cancel the hack.

in ps2, we will always have a big zerg, since it´s free to play and we will see many more casual players than we saw in the expensive ps1.
i hope the mission system helps with controlling them a little.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by KrazeyVIII

I could be wrong but hasn't it already been stated that the developers are trying to steer clear of anything related to artillery? I can't seem to find the source but I remember the reasoning being that they wanted combat to be engaging instead of pointing and clicking on the map.

Economy wise I don't think anyone really knows what's going on with it yet other then the fact that there is a system in place.

ouch...as a BF3 refugee I have to say we are looking for BF3 to be more strategic, less meatgrind...that would mean things like artillery.

And this is a case where, while I understand the need to somewhat emulate the other games, but DICE claims they wanted things to be more engaging, despite this, they have totally filled BF3 with lock-on weapons. As an example, lock-on Javelins of little skill where they could have had wire-guided AT of at least moderate skill.

This is one area where I really hope they are not going to emulate BF3 and CoD too much...

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

ouch...as a BF3 refugee I have to say we are looking for BF3 to be more strategic, less meatgrind...that would mean things like artillery.

I think artillery is something you would have to experience in-game in order to have a better idea whether you would really like it or not.

Personally, I felt it was as frustrating as back-hacking before the lattice was implemented i.e. something annoying to deal with but that can be set up again with relative ease.

An annoyance would be my feeling about the flail. Now if an extra game mechanic like artillery can be implemented and be fun for most, why not ? In that sense, however, I do not think the flail was a success.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

I think artillery is something you would have to experience in-game in order to have a better idea whether you would really like it or not.

Personally, I felt it was as frustrating as back-hacking before the lattice was implemented i.e. something annoying to deal with but that can be set up again with relative ease.

An annoyance would be my feeling about the flail. Now if an extra game mechanic like artillery can be implemented and be fun for most, why not ? In that sense, however, I do not think the flail was a success.

It sounds like some people didn't like flails because of their ability to sit next to friendly shielded bases...I would say that lowering their range is a solution to that but...exactly how close together are bases expected to be? If you lower the range of artillery so that it can't fire all the way from a friendly base to an enemy base, is that going to mean it has a silly low range?

[sylphaen]

Frankly, I cannot pretend to know at which range things stop being annoying and start being fun. That's why I limited my post to highlighting that an action requiring a lot of effort for little results is usually annoying.

For instance, if respawning was instant, taking a spawn room could have been a lot more frustrating in PS1.

FYI, about the flail, some people used to flail while being AFK (using a pen to hold down the fire key) and the spotter was not even a necessity.

[SGTalon]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Thanks for the link. I don't remember Malorn ever posting it himself or I must have missed it. It should be an interesting read.

Just for the sake of understanding, are you also a Liberty clan member ? Does the outfit still exist or has it reformed ?

.

I am TR for life. Liberty is NC. I was on Emerald though. And i was a victim of every one of Malorn's tactics. Although at the time I had no idea that it was just a few guys guiding the game like that.

I think that having him on that server elevated the game to something that the Devs never imagined it could be. I just hope that there is enough flexibility to the new game to allow for creativity like that.

I just imagine that Malorn is the John Connor of PS1.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Frankly, I cannot pretend to know at which range things stop being annoying and start being fun. That's why I limited my post to highlighting that an action requiring a lot of effort for little results is usually annoying.

For instance, if respawning was instant, taking a spawn room could have been a lot more frustrating in PS1.

FYI, about the flail, some people used to flail while being AFK (using a pen to hold down the fire key) and the spotter was not even a necessity.

Well, respawns should never be instant. But I don't agree with limiting squad spawn to outdoor only(or making respawns, including squad spawns, more than 20 seconds), either; and to the extent that capturing a spawn room makes any difference, I really don't see why defenders should ever spawn right inside a room that has to be captured in order to capture a base, anyway.

But now, as far as the artillery goes, I thought you meant that it was annoying for the people getting hit by it, not by the people using it...which did you mean?