Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Where purple people with ray guns aren't "cool" anymore.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2013-07-16, 12:20 AM | [Ignore Me] #46 | ||
Colonel
|
Increasing spawn timers for both attackers and defenders, at both fixed and Sunderers, should be on the table. Obviously there are ways to do this such as a multiple SCU approach (taking down 1 or 2 SCU increases spawn timer, all 3 shuts it off).
Or, deploying 1 sunderer in a certain radius is a 30 second respawn, 5 makes the respawn as short as it is now. |
||
|
2013-07-16, 01:46 AM | [Ignore Me] #47 | |||
Private
|
If you rush to a base in order to hack out a sunderer what do you do then? You pull the sunderer outside the safety of walls and place it where? If that sunderer you have moved away from the vehicle spawn point dies how do you pull another one? Odds are your forces guarding the vehicle spawn are dead which often times includes the capture point, or you hold the vehicle spawn but can't keep a sunderer alive because you're forced to move it so far away from where the bulk of your forces are trying to hold the capture point and it's out in the open. How do you attack an amp station without superior numbers? At times the game already feels like a zerg fest and you've made it so that you HAVE to have superior numbers in order to take a facility. Previously you could have a Sunderer up inside of a tech plant or amp station and still fail on your attack if you didn't protect them. Now you take the inside of an amp station and because your sunderer can no longer be placed inside your reinforcements are forced to run from greater distances than the defenders from their spawn room. It will always be a greater distance because there is no place you can safely put a sunderer near the capture point that will allow your reinforcements to get there in time. You can only rely on spawn beacons / medics / squad deployments for so long. Just this weekend I was in a platoon that tried to assault an amp station only to fail because the numbers grew to the point that it was impossible to defend without a sunderer on the inside. Is the only strategy to bring more people than them? The way things are it feels like the goal is not to attack and defend your place on the capture point but to attack and camp the defenders into the spawn point so that the defenders can't get out. If these biodomes comes in it forces attackers to bring in even more numbers since you can no longer use combined arms, air will not be able to suppress and these massive walls on esamir means that armor can't suppress either (for the record I love the esamir changes.) I also have to ask about why base timers are being changed again? The zergs already move strong and shorter timers do nothing but encourage more of that gameplay, the more people you have together the quicker you can get through all the bases and all that wonderful capture xp that zergs seem to enjoy. I shudder to think about what the TR Connery outfits are going to do with 7min timers on major bases and I think an even shorter one on biolabs. |
|||
|
2013-07-16, 01:27 PM | [Ignore Me] #48 | ||
Sergeant
|
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.
|
||
|
2013-07-17, 01:58 AM | [Ignore Me] #49 | |||
Sergeant
|
I've taken to Tank mining just behind the shield in amp stations because I have seen a lot more use of GSD as of late. |
|||
|
2013-07-17, 04:04 PM | [Ignore Me] #50 | ||
Staff Sergeant
|
I think the no deploy zones need to be removed immediately, this is a fundamental interruption in game play strategy that was designed by the players for the players. Players want a sand box battle field that we can figure out what works and what does not, we do not like restrictions on what we can and can not do with are vehicles and weapons. Design a base and then give us are space to figure out how to make it work. Do not make random restrictions that make no sense like this vehicle "magically can not deploy here". We do not want are battles and strategy's guided by game Devs.
|
||
|
2013-07-18, 09:57 PM | [Ignore Me] #51 | ||
Private
|
Unfortunately bases have not been designed for NDZ's (and removing them for defenders and other fixes suggested here are changes to suit a bad idea and will only cause further problems).
Tired of having to park the sundie in the open when attacking, only to have it blown up by a lib, or whatever, as soon as I have run half-way to the objective. If NDZ's suit MLG play keep them for the Battle Islands. They aren't a solution to indefensible bases. Mordelicius has nailed it in his post I HOPE THE DEVS HAVE READ AND RE-READ IT at least a couple of times! Also agree with Greenthy and many other posters here about how NDZ's are just wrong wrong wrong! So you want to adapt the game to suit MLG... fine... save the changes for the Battle Islands. |
||
|
2013-07-20, 12:20 PM | [Ignore Me] #52 | |||
Private
|
Perhaps a key spot for the return of the cloak bubble. |
|||
|
2013-07-21, 03:25 AM | [Ignore Me] #54 | ||
Corporal
|
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
__________________
[dgma] SerethiX |
||
|
2013-07-21, 09:29 AM | [Ignore Me] #55 | ||
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.
|
|||
|
2013-07-21, 04:08 PM | [Ignore Me] #56 | |||
Also I think I finally realised that Mineguard is OP in a way that AT mines shouldn't be able to kill a mineguardless Sunderer. Otherwise mineguard is a musthave cert for an AMS which is stupid. Last edited by NewSith; 2013-07-21 at 04:10 PM. |
||||
|
2013-07-24, 12:47 AM | [Ignore Me] #58 | ||
Major
|
War Report #16
Axeltoss and Jax on Sunderer placement. Check 41m 10s in. Freelancers Union vs Consortium and Heavy Metal Marines - War Report Episode 16 - YouTube Jax quote: "Why are they deploying their Sundies on such an open area??" And another on 38m 30s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPLCWm392xc#t=38m30s And another on 44m 50s. They eventually parked one so far away for the sake of cover.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPLCWm392xc#t=44m50s Watch the these clips of Sunderers blowing one after the other. They explode so fast, how are even NDZs a necessity? |
||
|
2013-07-29, 04:37 PM | [Ignore Me] #59 | |||
Corporal
|
Have you read any of the posts in this thread? I think, ndz's could be improved, so they match the attacker/defender rating. Let's say we have 12/6, then the ndz is 2 times bigger than normal. And the sunderer needs to park in a greater distance. On 6/12 the sunderer can park closer to the points. When you park your sunderer while having 1/30 and then the ratio changes to 12/12 and you parked inside the ndz, the spawn time at the sunderer is set to a higher level, like spawn beacons. In this case you might be able to spawn again, but you'll always try to get the sunderer out of the ndz. If we have 48+/48+ i would like to see a ndz that covers the whole base and the surrounding area, so it is a fight of strategy and not who can park a sunderer better than the other. My five cents SerethiX - www.serethi.de
__________________
[dgma] SerethiX |
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|