Cont Lock finally? - Page 5

Figment · 2014-06-04, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

You put a lot of content in your posts, and again, I disagree with a lot of it from a game design point of view.

You say No deploy zones is fighting the devs, and I disagree. Why, in soccer or hockey, am I not allowed to just stand next to the goalie and goalhang the whole game? The reason I can't is the offsides rule. Am I fighting the rule makers of FIFA or the NHL? No, I am playing a balanced game that gives people a sporting chance to win. If we let any strategy go, we start getting cheap no-skill tactics like that.

I would point out again that an "arbitrary off-side area" wouldn't have been necessary if the bases were designed around defense rather than "attacker wins once it can camp the box, which is as soon as it gets in range of the base".

Some of your bases have been improved, but not by far all. Had you listened to us during Alpha and beta, you'd not have to use such random band-aids now: you'd have ensured that defenders would have the distance to capture points advantage and would have non-vehicle campable approaches to those areas, while attackers would have to find ways to disable the defenders from spawning, rather than camping the box.

Your map design and win conditions usualy include "camp as much as possible", that's very off-putting to players who play defense: they'll quit the local fight. Which is off-putting to players who play offense: they either camp without skill, they lack a real challenge and worse, eventually they have nobody to shoot at all because the other party moved on (!).

This was a HUGE reason for players, veteran and I bet new players alike, to quit. The camping certainly was a huge reason to stop playing for my outfit and sister-outfits.

I actually don't like Anti-Personnel mines either, and think they're pretty cheap too. I'd love to remove them from the game, or make them give more feedback so people have a better chance of not dying to them. But the difference is vehicles have a large cooldown and resource cost. If you mine a pad, they essentially waste resources, where you can just respawn as a player. And people can't learn to play vehicles in combat if they never get a chance to spawn.

A couple comments here:

With thousands of players in an area (and especially with such low ttks), being able to deny areas to the enemy with mines or at least weakening them is important for a defender.

"Skill" is in concealed placement, denial placement, etc. No, it's not twitch aim skill, it's a tactical skill. The problem with PS2 is that it's a strategic/tactical game while it mostly provides derpy solutions: one hit kill this, one hit kill that. If you want players to die less, maybe just make everything less lethal. Allow players to respond.

The ability to detect or expect boobytraps is a skill too. Of course, with the way you designed it, detection is often too late: even if you spotted it, it often already went off and killed you. Again. This is your choice as devs to opt for really fast TTKs.

PlanetSide 1 had WAY more mines per player, but they were FAR less lethal. You are annoyed with mines in ways that I can't recall anyone being annoyed with mines in PS1. Also... We could pack as many EMP grenades as we deemed necessary in PS1. In PS2? You have to pay resources for it.

Speaking of which, your resource argument goes for the mines as well. In fact, it's likelier to be a waste since you got so few of them, they're bound not to trigger anything.

Anyway. The biggest issue to a new player in a mmo pvp environment like this is the sheer amount of threats. And you as a design team made EACH OF THEM instant death. You don't allow players to gain situational awareness. It is something I warned about during alpha/beta and maintain is a huge problem. And a huge source of frustration. Cause if you always die instantly to anything that attempts to camp, when are you going to be able to make a counter-move?

If for a moment I agreed we should take stealth away from the infiltrator, the community would go berserk. People are invested in the game, and we can't just take a primary feature away from a class. Not to mention at the range they do most of their killing, the stealth wouldn't have a huge effect anyway.

In my opinion it was a mistake to give infiltrators anything more than a side arm. I've played infiltrator since 2004. Don't tell me it's not OP to ambush people like that with low ttk weapons.

The sunderer jammer is a neat idea, but it's not something we need right now. There are more pressing issues.

IMO it's a bad idea. Why not just start with making attrition matter?

Repairs, revives and ammunition are too readily and infinitely accessible. Defenders are numerically disadvantaged, give them a meaningful logistical advantage: nerf medics and engineers and increase the reliability on equipment terminals.

And yeah, it would have helped if the dev team hadn't given every class to every player. For one, it would have made players unique. Gameplay uniqueness and pride in what they can do makes a character mean something to a person beyond cosmetics. It also makes alternate characters with alternative challenges, (dis)advantages and therefore alternative gameplay interesting. Your setup doesn't do that and I think it bores players sooner.

rpgawesome · 2014-06-04, 06:57 PM

Ok i just read the upper post and I think im one of the FEW who are going to read it in full and understand it.
Yes this game has a lot of issues that nobody sees until you realise that all of your gaming and playing was futile because when you look at the forums or hear someone complain you will notice it too.
Now what I wanted to say and I KNOW it's hoing to sound dumb but here it is:
WHY DO WE PLAY VIDEO GAMES?
Because they help us escape our bad reality/relax or take a break/or we just started playing a long time ago and can't stop playing.
DO YOU REALLY WANT A SUPER DUPER REALISTICAL GAME?
No.Why?Because this is a futuristical shooter that is probably better that most games and it's FREE.
IS THIS REPLY WORTH ANY AWNSERING THE THREAD OR EVEN MY GRAMATICAL ATTENTION?
Probably not.

Be happy with what we got.It could be a lot worse but it isn't and remember IT'S STILL A F2P game.

Mordelicius · 2014-06-05, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

You put a lot of content in your posts, and again, I disagree with a lot of it from a game design point of view.

You say No deploy zones is fighting the devs, and I disagree. Why, in soccer or hockey, am I not allowed to just stand next to the goalie and goalhang the whole game? The reason I can't is the offsides rule. Am I fighting the rule makers of FIFA or the NHL? No, I am playing a balanced game that gives people a sporting chance to win. If we let any strategy go, we start getting cheap no-skill tactics like that.

Except, defense is allowed to park the Sunderer next to Capture point, correct? In hockey, are defense allowed to just block the goalpost all the time? Surely if the defense is allowed to park a Sundy to the capture point in PS2, then logically, and by rule of reciprocity, offense can be allowed as well.

I actually don't like Anti-Personnel mines either, and think they're pretty cheap too. I'd love to remove them from the game, or make them give more feedback so people have a better chance of not dying to them. But the difference is vehicles have a large cooldown and resource cost. If you mine a pad, they essentially waste resources, where you can just respawn as a player. And people can't learn to play vehicles in combat if they never get a chance to spawn.

I knew it, AI mines are next....Again its' that "hands on" philosophy that's encroaching too much on Player vs. Player space.

And AV mines on vehicle pads is just normal gameplay that involve balanced risk/rewards.
Isolated Base in the middle of nowhere (0-5 players) - Low risk getting killed by defense/ low chance getting a kill. (Why even bother going to a faraway base to just drop an AV mine???)

Medium fight (5-20 defenders) - normal risk getting killed or losing the mine / normal reward getting a kill.

Heavy fighting (20-48+ defenders) - high risk dying trying to drop a mine or losing the mine / high reward taking out a vehicle.

The reason why I AV mine pads in the first place is in, for example, Tech Plants, the ideal spot to put my Sundy spawn is just out side the NDZ which is right outside the SCU. And that pad is right behind. See how all this limitations are so tied together and so frustrating?

It's the the same with attacking Vanu Archives and one can't mine the pads. They pull out a tank and your Sundy is toast next to C. Imo, it's a very valid strategy.

Imo, the Devs are mischaracterizing/misidentifying this as the problem. The problem I see here is more of a lack of a tutorial on AV mines or even AI mines. The newbies just lack a tutorial on how to deal with mines in general, that's all and that's it.Take any PvP MMOs without tutorials, and any players will be confused, even if the mechanics are simple.

If for a moment I agreed we should take stealth away from the infiltrator, the community would go berserk. People are invested in the game, and we can't just take a primary feature away from a class. Not to mention at the range they do most of their killing, the stealth wouldn't have a huge effect anyway.

Whoa, wait a second! Snipers are different from Infiltrators!! I'm proposing removing it from long-ranged Snipers. Hence, if they have a Sniper rifle equipped, stealth is disabled. So if a regular short ranged weapon is equipped, then Infiltrators can still stealth. And oh, stealth has huge effect for infiltrators. That's why can they are mobile and can change location with impunity. There's way too much advantage and no downside at all.

I heard of a plan, according to a Higby video, to give Light Assults dual wield capability for their revamp. As a result the jump jet cannot be used while dual wielding, correct? Well, Snipers, has 3 advantages (range, stealth, 1-hit head shot). If LA jump jet will be disabled with dual wield, why can't Sniper (not infiltrator) stealth ability be disabled when sniping. Point being stealth is for infiltrators only, but for sniping, it is way stacked.

The sunderer jammer is a neat idea, but it's not something we need right now. There are more pressing issues.

It would be great if it can substitute for the NDZ instead. It's a much better mechanic.

The PS2 Generator mechanic is the best example of "hands off" approach. It's all player vs. player interaction and gameplay. There's no Dev hands preventing players from doing anything, it's all player driven.

A Sundy Jammer would have a similar "hands off" concept.

Figment · 2014-06-05, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by rpgawesome

Ok i just read the upper post and I think im one of the FEW who are going to read it in full and understand it.
Yes this game has a lot of issues that nobody sees until you realise that all of your gaming and playing was futile because when you look at the forums or hear someone complain you will notice it too.
Now what I wanted to say and I KNOW it's hoing to sound dumb but here it is:
WHY DO WE PLAY VIDEO GAMES?
Because they help us escape our bad reality/relax or take a break/or we just started playing a long time ago and can't stop playing.
DO YOU REALLY WANT A SUPER DUPER REALISTICAL GAME?
No.Why?Because this is a futuristical shooter that is probably better that most games and it's FREE.

Be happy with what we got.It could be a lot worse but it isn't and remember IT'S STILL A F2P game.

Quick question:
- How exactly is this relevant to the thread?
- Are you saying consumers and users should never provide feedback or critique?
- Are you saying that one should just accept anything you get, because it's free?
- Does being "better" mean it's perfect? Does being "better" mean mistakes or potential refinements shouldn't be suggested or pointed out?
- If the objective of a game is to relax and be provided entertainment, doesn't that mean that if something is frustrating the game actually fails to deliver?

Either way, I absolutely fail to see what you're trying to achieve or what you are trying to convince people of with your message or even who you're trying to address. Worse, I fail to see the logic behind the argument (which seems to be very non-sequitur to the discussion of the topic anyway: "it's free, thus accept the game's implementation of game mechanic X/any game mechanics and combinations thereof"). :/

Figment · 2014-06-05, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

Except, defense is allowed to park the Sunderer next to Capture point, correct? In hockey, are defense allowed to just block the goalpost all the time? Surely if the defense is allowed to park a Sundy to the capture point in PS2, then logically, and by rule of reciprocity, offense can be allowed as well.

The analogy doesn't quite work: defenders may be subject to different rules. In the sports analogy above, offense can be off-side, defense can not be since it's their side of the pitch. Hence defenders can spawn in the spawnbuilding, but the attacker cannot. Or, in PS1, defenders could use /b in their SOI, while attackers could not.

Yet, nobody was allowed to HART in within a SOI, to prevent bypassing of the defensive lines in order for defense to have a chance. You're better off describing why equal rules should be applied in this case, than that "it's natural". Remember, we wern't allowed to place vehicles at certain points near doors in PS1, due to potential blocking abuse.

Whoa, wait a second! Snipers are different from infiltrators!! I'm proposing removing it from long-ranged Snipers. Hence, if they have a Sniper rifle equipped, stealth is disabled. So if a regular short ranged weapon is equipped, then Infiltrators can still stealth. And oh, stealth has huge effect for infiltrators. That's why can they are mobile and can change location with impunity. There's way too much advantage and no downside at all.

Only downside is health (armour/hitpoints). Snipers did fine in PS1 without stealth. I've always been of the opinion it's too easy to have snipefils run around cloaked. Same for headshots being instant kills a lot leaving too little survivability to become situationally aware for a lot of people.

It would be great if it can substitute for the NDZ instead. It's a much better mechanic.

The PS2 Generator mechanic is the best example of "hands off" approach. It's all player vs. player interaction and gameplay. There's no Dev hands preventing players from doing anything, it's all player driven.

A Sundy Jammer would have a similar "hands off" concept.

Better but not perfect either. A valid strategic target, but should IMO just be tied to control of the capture point:

Not captured = can't place AMS due to interference range, but any that had already been placed remain functional.
Captured = can place AMS
Re-captured (by defense) = Massively reset capture progress (not just stop ticker or turn ticker around, defense needs more incentive and reward to regain control of points)

I dislike the "capture point area", manually hacking it is much more immersive, can be countered and provides some teamplay cover or stealth requirements, while providing a priority target to resecuring players (a way to control if a cap goes through.

I don't think people should be made aware of a capture attempt of a point or generator until it succeeds. These points however should be in the natural movement and defensive zones of defenders, so they discover this information themselves and by simply moving around, they already cover these areas of interest (rather than that they have to cross to the other side of the base to intervene). Information on what to do next, should IMO be provided to new players AFTER it happened.

Regardless, HART and Spawn beacons should not allow harting on top of buildings. I much rather deal with people who have to work their way up, than with people who drop behind you and get a free passage beyond your defensive line.

Illtempered · 2014-06-05, 10:37 AM

Stop catering to nubs and just make the game good. Build it and they will come.

Illtempered · 2014-06-05, 11:00 AM

11am Central and Mattherson is completely dead....

Not one hotspot for my empire when I logged in...

This game is dying, and in my most HUMBLE opinion, it is mainly because of the development mindset exhibited in this very thread. This game was supposed to be special. Nay, it had to be special. We all knew that. Ten years ago this franchise was absolutely revolutionary and ahead of it's time. That's why I was putting my money on Planetside instead of the plethora of other shooters that were out at the time.

We poured thousands of hours, and thousands of dollars into this franchise because we knew it was special. Now it's gasping for breath and it might just be time to put the poor horse down for good and wait for the next special thing to show up.

Edit to show that I have posted threads with constructive criticism http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=58070

Most of these ideas I would bet, can be agreed upon by people who understand this game. Instead of getting any of this, we got implants that can be monetized. Surprise surprise.

Figment · 2014-06-05, 11:07 AM

Well tbh, this is one of the reasons I proposed to create LARGER servers with copies of continents, and over time start replacing continents as new continents would become available to take the place of the old.

This way, we would have long seen 10-15 continents, even if they're duplicates, but with servers so full that we wouldn't really feel them emptying for a long time. IMO, there were FAR too many servers for PS2 at launch. :/

Although at launch, it was still in beta really. :/ Most of the stuff that has to be implemented still is.

VaderShake · 2014-06-05, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Illtempered

it might just be time to put the poor horse down for good and wait for the next special thing to show up.

And what will that be? Battlefield Hardlines? (vomits in mouth)

Bottom line is in the world of FPS war games PS2 is still revolutionary on scale and scope and there is nothing else out there that can even touch it in that department point blank.

No one else is even stretching past 64 players in FPS's on the PC or shared any plans to.

Been playing video games since Pong in 1978 and there are very few titles out there that even remotely perk my interest as something new or interesting.

Like it or not PS2 is still revolutionary in it's current state but SOE could have done more to set it apart for sure. Then the H1Z1 announcement..ugh..

E3 is next week...they better show us something good...

Sarloh · 2014-06-06, 07:27 PM

Planetside 2 is what I like to call; the holy grail of gaming. There is no game like it. It has elements of: FPS, MMO, RPG, strategy, driving, flying, not to mention 2000 angry hippies and rebels pointing their guns in your face on a 64 km2 map. 3 of them actually.

Planetside 2 IS the ultimate game.

Rivenshield · 2014-06-07, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

Disclaimer: All of this is subject to change.

When a continent lock is broken, the continent has it’s warpgates configuration incremented to the next and default territory split is set for all 3 empires, and spawning is reenabled.

Thresholds are set by designers. It will trigger an alert. When the alert is won by the conquering faction, the continent is locked.

Last stands will be subject to alert XP like normal.

/raises hand

Is there any whisper of a chance we are going to get sanctuaries back? Even if they're just carbon copies of the 3D training environments stuck on teeny islands? They would eliminate the dozens of retards hanging around the WG and dragging down their empire's cont pop, and they give a wonderful place to gather for new assaults. They are important strategically and they lend themselves to that intangible of intangibles -- esprit de corps. Please?

Originally Posted by Muldoon

Why it would be great to have a user's guide, most new players would never look at it.

/jaw drop

Wow. Just wow. Never fucking mind, then. I'll never ask anything of you again.

Azzzz · 2014-06-08, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

Wow. Just wow. Never fucking mind, then. I'll never ask anything of you again.

I could be wrong but aren't there a few videos posted when you load up the launcher showing you a few tips and tricks? I recall the combat videos at least.

Although granted, not much of a "user's guide".

Stanis · 2014-06-08, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

I actually don't like Anti-Personnel mines either, and think they're pretty cheap too. I'd love to remove them from the game, or make them give more feedback so people have a better chance of not dying to them. But the difference is vehicles have a large cooldown and resource cost. If you mine a pad, they essentially waste resources, where you can just respawn as a player. And people can't learn to play vehicles in combat if they never get a chance to spawn.

Can we get a clear indicator - or make it impossible - to deploy mines in an area where they will blow up ?
I must say I get annoyed putting them further and further away from a vehicle bay so they don't go boom.

It's just as annoying having your mine wasted as a vehicle.

On that note - in many cases a player is pulling a vehicle away from a fight. That means they can take the time to CHECK the vehicle pad.
Vehicle blows up once - you take the hint. Sometimes I forget to check but there are a few players that obviously know the auto-drive routes and put them down perfectly.
This seems perfectly fair play to me. The trade off between time to check and actually bothering to do so .. not to mention the likelihood and frequency of spawning vehicles.

Figment · 2014-06-08, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Stanis

Can we get a clear indicator - or make it impossible - to deploy mines in an area where they will blow up ?
I must say I get annoyed putting them further and further away from a vehicle bay so they don't go boom.

It's just as annoying having your mine wasted as a vehicle.

On that note - in many cases a player is pulling a vehicle away from a fight. That means they can take the time to CHECK the vehicle pad.
Vehicle blows up once - you take the hint. Sometimes I forget to check but there are a few players that obviously know the auto-drive routes and put them down perfectly.
This seems perfectly fair play to me. The trade off between time to check and actually bothering to do so .. not to mention the likelihood and frequency of spawning vehicles.

If they can be placed, they should be placed, not blow up or deconstruct.

See PS1: force a spread, use red and green indicators on where it is allowed to place them, done.

Baneblade · 2014-06-08, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

Personally I disagree with a lot of your post, but this was the biggest one I disagreed with. There are lots of new players playing Planetside each day, and are learning how to play. The game is already really hard to learn, and having a new player blow up on a vehicle pad is a quick way to getting them to uninstall. Without new players, the game dies.

Call it hand holding or what have you, being able to place mines on the vehicle pad is one of the cheapest things you could do and added very little to the game.

If mines were not quite so powerful or able to be placed so close together, it wouldn't be a problem.