Mobile Spawning Redesign. - Page 3

Figment · 2013-02-26, 04:54 AM

As powerful?

It isn't about power, it is about composing a character that fits your playstyle and making long term choices in its growth that don't stack endlessly.

Current PS2 context doesn't allow this sort of trade-off, but in PS1, all certs competed with one another and your prefered cert combi priorities would simply exclude extra's like an AMS or something else.

Personally, I still have tiny hopes the devs change it to where the current PS2 cert points become research points and there is a layer of BR tied limited cert points on top. The BR tied points would restrict you from having unlimited access. So you could be making a choice for say 15 certpoints out of 100 to spend on an AMS, or get AV and the Light Assault suit instead at 5 and 7 points each and unlock specialties within a suit at one or two points. (Random cost to illustrate how quickly you would be forced to make choices; not everyone would want to afford an AMS but leave it to others in exchange for a weapon, suit, tool or other vehicle or multiple things at once).

This is how PS1 worked, with 26 points to spend and cost between 1 and 5 points (next to stand alone certs, often in prerequesite trees 3+2, or 2+(3 and/or 3 and/or 3), etc. Only you didn't have to grind to research the options to select.

(The research should IMO be shared by all your account's characters, while different characters of yours would have different setups and different playstyles). It would be a lot more fun to play with a handicap forcing you to be creative than to have everything and default to heaviest firepower gameplay. It would make it more fresh if you had characters to switch to with and without a medic, MAX or infil suit for instance.

Rothnang · 2013-02-26, 05:07 AM

It would be nice if there was a perk tree of some sorts that people could advance along, but they would have limited points. Top end perks could be used to gate certain particularly powerful vehicles and equipment to give it an element of rarity in the game that currently nothing really has.

However, that's neither here nor there. My big concern is still:

What's the fecking point to LACs and Galaxies as long as you can just Clowncar the shit out of any base?

Figment · 2013-02-26, 06:51 AM

The problem with Galaxies is that there are no single wave objective to resecure. A Galaxies role is to dump players in a single wave on a single insertion point.

Considering the quick respawn rates and long time hold requirements, this is virtually useless. Especially since high up insertion points can just as easily if not more easily be reached with LA and Spawn Beacons.

That has more to do with the capture system and base design though than with AMSes, though obviously AMSes spawn LA's. The Gal transport role is worsened because you can just use ESFs with LA pilot as alternative. Worse, because Gals are a pretty big and slow target, they are easy ESF and Liberator prey thanks to the widely used, rather large rocket spam clips and extremely strong gunship gun.

If bases were too tall/high for jetpackers to scale and there was a ban on dropping with pods on bases, such buildings would make for attractive Galaxy drop targets. But only if you didn't need consistent troop insertions, but could for instance disable the spawns in one strike.

Short TTK doesn't help small insertion groups either, since they can't revive/respawn as decently as the local defender of say a Bio Dome.

But yeah, the Galaxy IMO primarily suffers from capture point mechanics, base design and extremely uneven competition with other high altitude insertion methods. The AMS isn't the problem: Galaxies were used regularly in PS1 and the relationship between AMS and Gal design hasn't really changed. New however, are lack of SOI, wide openly accessible and relatively low (due to jetpack) base layouts and of course the capture system being a tug-of-war instead of hack and hold - instant resecure.

Rothnang · 2013-02-26, 08:18 AM

All valid points, but it's the disposable nature of infantry that makes 11 guys airdropping into a base pointless. Even if they kill 30 enemies before they all die, it just makes no difference.

You simply cannot win a battle without depriving the enemy of spawn capabilities currently, which is exactly why suicide bombing sunderers and camping spawnrooms are such popular strategies.

Figment · 2013-02-26, 08:39 AM

Which is why I've been fighting for very specific, all-encompassing base design changes.

Rothnang · 2013-02-26, 09:21 AM

I don't see how the base design is going to make a big difference there. It's more an issue with the game not having any kind of logistics system. Spawning shouldn't be free IMO. It shouldn't necessarily cost you resources, but there should be a significant benefit to significantly outkilling your enemy, which right now, there simply isn't because the people you kill are right back 30 seconds later. Unless you can outkill them so much that they never even get to leave the spawn room you aren't accomplishing anything by killing them.

I think an offensive needs to have a real chance of running out of steam before accomplishing its objective, and a defense needs to be able to be broken by laying siege to the base for a long period of time. Running supplies to the troops to keep them fighting should be a big part of the game, because it would allow vehicles to have a role where their mobility is a benefit, where operating across a large expanse of terrain is genuinely helpful to a battle that the infantry is waging inside a confined base.

Figment · 2013-02-26, 09:32 AM

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...uilding.65475/

Suggest you skim through this thread (particularly post 13 and 14 on base design principles and posts 123, 213, 229) to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

SOE already picked up on the little defensive structure suggestions with regards to the new spawnrooms. The overall base design philosophy however hasn't changed.

Dkamanus · 2013-02-26, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

All valid points, but it's the disposable nature of infantry that makes 11 guys airdropping into a base pointless. Even if they kill 30 enemies before they all die, it just makes no difference.

You simply cannot win a battle without depriving the enemy of spawn capabilities currently, which is exactly why suicide bombing sunderers and camping spawnrooms are such popular strategies.

I disagree.

Having people drop at the right time at the right place in a base is something VERY worthwhile. AMP Stations and Tech Plants have such moments and places, and can turn the tide of battles. Been there, do that. And I believe many people have done the same.

Even if those 12 guys aren't depriving any infantry spawning capability (which depends on what we are talking also), they are actually hitting targets while the main force is occupied with the defending force. These spec-ops teams are essential.

Rothnang · 2013-02-26, 10:41 AM

Right place and time is a pretty vague standard for effectiveness though. Coordinating an effort with 12 people and expensive equipment should not be a hit and miss affair, where every time it goes horribly wrong you say "Well, I guess it wasn't the right place and time". I mean what are the chances of getting it right? Sure, there are times when a Galaxy drop can break a stalemate, but even then you have to ask if it was only a stalemate in the first place because 12 guys were flying around in a Galaxy instead of doing the clowncar shuffle.

Khorneholio · 2013-02-26, 01:37 PM

The best change they could make to the mobile spawn system is to add a "respawn nanofuel tank" that works as follows:

-The tank would represent the number of respawn "tickets" that AMS unit has available

-The tank could be refueled at friendly ammo towers.

-Players could cert into either higher capacity nanofuel tanks or faster refilling tanks.

-A control panel could be placed in outposts which enemies could overload in order to shut down the ammo tower at that outpost. The tower would take X minutes to "reboot" once repaired.

This would improve the game in that it would:

-inject an element of logistics, reminiscent of ANT runs, into the game; an element that's currently lacking.

-give smaller units a tactical objective (ammo towers/pads) they could attack in order to limit the zerg's momentum.

There's also the possibility that limiting the number of spawns an AMS can provide before refueling might allow for the return of the Galaxy AMS in a more balanced manner, if that ticket number were kept low enough.

I also REALLY like the idea of "Spawn interdiction field" Sundys. However, I think this would really shine as a new Galaxy role: So long as a properly equipped galaxy is loitering overhead, enemy Sundy's are incapable of spawning troops.

Figment · 2013-02-26, 03:43 PM

Before we continue on nerf the AMS and call it a clowncar, I'd like to hear an argument - preferably supported by footage, to see where the AMS problem originates, since I hardly even get to fight infantry due to constantly facing tanks.

So if I don't get out there to kill infantry due to vehicle spam, I don't see how the AMS can even be considered a problem or how it'd solve anything to nerf it.

Come on. If it's such a big issue, show some footage.

Rothnang · 2013-02-26, 07:29 PM

I don't know what server you're on where infantry isn't relevant and AMS isn't the king of the battlefield. I play on Mattherson and we just don't really have the whole "vehicle spam" problem that people talk about.

Sure, sometimes an enemy brings in a huge tank force and for the moment they wreak a lot of havoc, but it's usually infanty that eventually wears them down. C4, tankmines, concentrated rocket fire from heavies as well as engineers now. When I play I observe something entirely different than you seem to. Vehicles can't even get close to a base that has a significant amount of infantry in it, because all the easy access points are mined and there are loads of heavies and engineers on the roofs... the only way they can clear that base out is by sending in infantry of their own.

What do you want to see footage of? An AMS creating craploads of infantry that go fight each other?
I want to see footage of "vehicle spam" that somehow makes infantry irrelevant. I've never seen such a thing.

Originally Posted by Khorneholio

I also REALLY like the idea of "Spawn interdiction field" Sundys. However, I think this would really shine as a new Galaxy role: So long as a properly equipped galaxy is loitering overhead, enemy Sundy's are incapable of spawning troops.

Having AMS disruptors that can be moved around is a huge can of worms. What happens when an AMS vehicle is already deployed when this Galaxy moves overhead? It loses spawn capabilities? Then what stops someone from just making 10 Galaxies with a single pilot each that circle the base while the rest of their forces kill all the attacking Sunderers?

This kind of approach to balance doesn't really foster clever tactical thinking, because anything that's contingent on survivability for its effect can too easily be freed from all downsides by just mass spawning the unit.

The whole reason why Sunderers have the deploy exclusion zone around them is because when you could put multiple AMSes right next to each other people would inoculate their spawn capabilities to being taken down by just putting 3, 4, 5 Sunderers right next to each other, which set the bar for taking them down before a new one arrived extremely high.

Figment · 2013-02-26, 08:34 PM

Ah, you're only fighting in zergfit size groups. Makes sense, but that's just one form of gameplay. Whole different gameplay in fact, because you're less reliant on others and can cover far more insane holes in your defenses.

We're frequently fighting with single squads or less on Miller. Try that for a while and try holding a base (by which I mean, from a base to a tower to the smallest of outposts). Chances are you can't exit the smallest of spawn rooms at all and will have severe issues covering the 50m to 130m to the CC.

You know, the point where people quit fighting because it's hopeless. And before you say get a bigger outfit: no. The game needs to cater to small and large groups and individuals if it wants to reach as large an audience as possible. That isn't a stubborn thing to say, that's fact. You can't only design for the zerg size outfits, whether organised or not. That's going to chase everyone away from the game.

Saintlycow · 2013-02-26, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Khorneholio

There's also the possibility that limiting the number of spawns an AMS can provide before refueling might allow for the return of the Galaxy AMS in a more balanced manner, if that ticket number were kept low enough.

I also REALLY like the idea of "Spawn interdiction field" Sundys. However, I think this would really shine as a new Galaxy role: So long as a properly equipped galaxy is loitering overhead, enemy Sundy's are incapable of spawning troops.

I've promotted the first idea before, but the second is pure genius!

Rothnang · 2013-02-27, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Ah, you're only fighting in zergfit size groups. Makes sense, but that's just one form of gameplay. Whole different gameplay in fact, because you're less reliant on others and can cover far more insane holes in your defenses.

We're frequently fighting with single squads or less on Miller. Try that for a while and try holding a base (by which I mean, from a base to a tower to the smallest of outposts). Chances are you can't exit the smallest of spawn rooms at all and will have severe issues covering the 50m to 130m to the CC.

You know, the point where people quit fighting because it's hopeless. And before you say get a bigger outfit: no. The game needs to cater to small and large groups and individuals if it wants to reach as large an audience as possible. That isn't a stubborn thing to say, that's fact. You can't only design for the zerg size outfits, whether organised or not. That's going to chase everyone away from the game.

Small outfits can way too easily get steamrolled by a Zerg when they are defending, that is absolutely true. Defending bases should be job of smaller groups, and in order for them to do that the bases need to be defensible, or at the very least, need to allow a small group to hold out for the 10-15 minutes it takes for serious reinforcements to get there. You should have to siege a defended outpost, not just walk right over it.

However, I just don't see how vehicles are at fault for making it impossible to stand up to a huge zerg. In a squad vs. squad fight vehicles can make a pretty big difference, but they are still far from unbeatable. In fact, in squad sized fights vehicles tend to be much more vulnerable, in my experience, because a squad sized force can't cover every single unit in the game, so if they have vehicles you can often pull very specific counters.