Boundaries

[Kaw]

Originally Posted by Hmr85

I never took a shot at you... From your argument I took that as your type of playstyle. A more of a up front and constantly in the action type of guy. My argument is plenty valid. Its a sandbox game as stated numerous times by Higby and co. and in being such their should be not be a boundary limiting me from be able skirt down the coast to avoid contact. If they want to change it to a more COD/BF style game they need to stop stating its a Sandbox MMOFPS with a open free roaming Environment.

FYI Sandboxes have walls.

Seriously though, these boundaries are there for a reason. Being able to get behind enemy lines without having to work for it cheapens the experience.

[Draz]

I for one hope stealth operations require cunning and battlefield awareness, so I am all for the lack of off-shore flights.

[Stardouser]

Too many assumptions about "not having to work for it". This is a catchphrase designed to character assassinate people who want the ability to flank and sneak. The opposite argument is people who want to be able to sit in one area and wait for the enemy to come to them since they can't go anywhere else, without having to do any work to intercept.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

As has been stated a few times in the thread, we are not looking for real ocean overflight. Just a bit over the ocean will do. But restrictive out of bounds that start even before you cross the threshold of the waterline would be wrong.

And I said that I don't have a problem with it, so long as it's not beyond the range of land-based AA systems. You shouldn't have to be a stick-jockey to defend against sneak attacks.

Furthermore, I said that I think it's kind of silly to argue over *how far* is far enough before we see beta, and that this is the sort of thing that is easily adjustable in beta to tune it.

[Hmr85]

Originally Posted by Kaw

FYI Sandboxes have walls.

Seriously though, these boundaries are there for a reason. Being able to get behind enemy lines without having to work for it cheapens the experience.

I would love for you to answer Zulthus question back a page. With that said nobody is asking for a endless ocean that you could fly into and never hit a wall. I am asking for the option to fly maybe 200m past the waterline out. As of right now from the little bit we have seen you cannot access the coast.

As for cheapening the experience that is complete and total BS. I have done it numerous times in PS1 with my outfit and never once did I feel like it was "cheapening my experience" as I was on my way to my objective. If anything it helped with the immersion.

[Draz]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Too many assumptions about "not having to work for it". This is a catchphrase designed to character assassinate people who want the ability to flank and sneak. The opposite argument is people who want to be able to sit in one area and wait for the enemy to come to them since they can't go anywhere else, without having to do any work to intercept.

I can't sit in one area of a 4KM front line and wait for you to come to me. You can choose the least populated area of that same front line, fly high, have your choice of any number of destinations behind that front line, etc.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by kaffis

And I said that I don't have a problem with it, so long as it's not beyond the range of land-based AA systems. You shouldn't have to be a stick-jockey to defend against sneak attacks.

Furthermore, I said that I think it's kind of silly to argue over *how far* is far enough before we see beta, and that this is the sort of thing that is easily adjustable in beta to tune it.

I think those of us who don't want the out of bounds to function like a player by unduly influencing the game (football: The ground cannot cause a fumble) will basically accept 200 meters past the waterline. That should be within range of AA and therefore satisfy your demand as well.

Originally Posted by Draz

I can't sit in one area of a 4KM front line and wait for you to come to me. You can choose the least populated area of that same front line, fly high, have your choice of any number of destinations behind that front line, etc.

And this is a good thing. The hex system(meaning: the fact that capturing non adjacent hexes takes longer) is the solution, restrictive out of bounds on top of the hex system is wrong and overkill.

Somehow I think there's a meme forming here: Designs Large Persistent World : Limits People to Tunnel Warfare.

[Kaw]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

That was the BEAUTY of the game. Can I ask you, did you actually play Planetside?

Lets not resort to Ad hominem arguments. If I say something that you disagree with please just point it out to me. I have seen plenty of hour long base defenses end suddenly because a platoon dropped on the base out of nowhere just as the defenders had pushed out and I have only been playing for a week. That kind of stuff has the potential to be really awesome, if it took some effort and had a reasonable chance of failure.

[Draz]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I think those of us who don't want the out of bounds to function like a player by unduly influencing the game (football: The ground cannot cause a fumble) will basically accept 200 meters past the waterline. That should be within range of AA and therefore satisfy your demand as well.



And this is a good thing. The hex system(meaning: the fact that capturing non adjacent hexes takes longer) is the solution, restrictive out of bounds on top of the hex system is wrong and overkill.

Somehow I think there's a meme forming here: Designs Large Persistent World : Limits People to Tunnel Warfare.

You are against a restrictive out-of-bounds line but you suggest that they simply move the boundary out 200m. I am not against galaxies flying over the coast specifically, I don't want galaxies flying in areas where there is no reason for purpose for ground forces to be other than "i'm waiting for galaxies". If another continent has combat and control points on its beaches then I think your 200m out from the coast boundary is perfect.

There should be a risk that you will be spotted by ground forces, and so be it if your plan is thwarted by people using teamwork in an MMO.

[SgtMAD]

Originally Posted by Kaw

FYI Sandboxes have walls.

Seriously though, these boundaries are there for a reason. Being able to get behind enemy lines without having to work for it cheapens the experience.

no, it means you arrive at the target without taking any damage and are combat ready and haven't been spotted by an enemy.

because once you hack the base all hell is going to break loose and you need to be set up to defend a huge rush of enemies because in PS2 you are going to see way more ppl showing up to save their base.

"fly where everyone is at so we can see you"

then I have some sunderer driver telling me that flying over the water to keep 60 guys off the radar so we can attack a back-base is easy mode, a friggin truckdriver in a video game tells me that a high intensity,in your face,take chances playstyle is boring, easy mode and defense "just isn't fun".

well Ht played alot of defense,for the first year of this game the only outfit on Markov that had more kills than us had 2000 members,we thrived on sneaking around,using the water,mossie hotdropping on hacked bases,flipping red alert hacks so don't give me that "easy mode" shit

you drive your bus and the real spec-ops outfits will do the heavy lifting, just like it was in PS because we have the patience to do it.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

And this is a good thing. The hex system(meaning: the fact that capturing non adjacent hexes takes longer) is the solution, restrictive out of bounds on top of the hex system is wrong and overkill.

How is that the solution? You've already (or was it HMr85?) indicated that you dislike the idea of your assault giving a broadcast to alert people to your presence and hope that doesn't go in to ruin your stealth, so how does extending how long it takes to capture fix anything if nobody's going to be alerted?

Okay, framing it this way -- which is more important to you: "Stealthy" flights around the perimeter of the map, or "Stealthy" assault once you're at your target?

In other words, if you had to give up one or the other in order for the system to ensure there's a challenge to assaulting back-bases, which one do you feel would be more disruptive to your preferred style of play?

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Kaw

Lets not resort to Ad hominem arguments. If I say something that you disagree with please just point it out to me. I have seen plenty of hour long base defenses end suddenly because a platoon dropped on the base out of nowhere just as the defenders had pushed out and I have only been playing for a week. That kind of stuff has the potential to be really awesome, if it took some effort and had a reasonable chance of failure.

This has nothing to do with my beliefs right now, I'm pointing out that the system worked perfectly and I have never heard anyone complain about people coming out from behind a base from nowhere.

Why do you want to put some stupid unnecessary boundaries to prevent people who enjoy ops from having fun? It DOES take effort and has a chance of failure. Effort: getting your outfit together in the Galaxies, flying out for up to potentially 10 minutes around the continent, inserting your troops in the precise location you're trying to reach. Reasonable chance of failure: The guys and vehicles at the base trying to defend it. If you let a platoon of guys take the base out from under your entire force then you deserve to lose. The ops team did their job.

To be honest, I don't think you've seen what Planetside is in just a week of playing. The game is dead now, it's too late.

[Kaw]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

then I have some sunderer driver telling me that flying over the water to keep 60 guys off the radar so we can attack a back-base is easy mode, a friggin truckdriver in a video game tells me that a high intensity,in your face,take chances playstyle is boring, easy mode and defense "just isn't fun".

Please explain to me how flying over empty space with no chance of anybody seeing you, let alone shooting at you, is high intensity. The only high intensity part is flying over the base itself. The boundary system is trying to make it intense the whole way.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Draz

You are against a restrictive out-of-bounds line but you suggest that they simply move the boundary out 200m. I am not against galaxies flying over the coast specifically, I don't want galaxies flying in areas where there is no reason for purpose for ground forces to be other than "i'm waiting for galaxies". If another continent has combat and control points on its beaches then I think your 200m out from the coast boundary is perfect.

It doesn't matter if they have control points or not. Restrictive out of bounds is restrictive. Otherwise, what's the point of even having a coastline? The coastline is basically the "soft" out of bounds, and then the hard out of bounds is a bit past it so that beyond it, they don't have to render things fully.

If we were going to say, let's have the out of bounds be before the coastline just because there are no control points right on the coastline, then we don't even need a coastline, just have it all be land, and suddenly you're flying and boom - out of bounds.

But as you know, even if done that way, the issue remains. The out bounds, even if there is no coast, must still be far enough out that you can flank and sneak.

Frankly I'm very worried about the game now, it seems like the continents won't be big enough for 2000 without meatgrinding after all.

Originally Posted by kaffis

How is that the solution? You've already (or was it HMr85?) indicated that you dislike the idea of your assault giving a broadcast to alert people to your presence and hope that doesn't go in to ruin your stealth, so how does extending how long it takes to capture fix anything if nobody's going to be alerted?

Okay, framing it this way -- which is more important to you: "Stealthy" flights around the perimeter of the map, or "Stealthy" assault once you're at your target?

In other words, if you had to give up one or the other in order for the system to ensure there's a challenge to assaulting back-bases, which one do you feel would be more disruptive to your preferred style of play?

I would rather have stealthy flights and then a warning to the enemy the instant you set foot inside the capture radius of part of a base(or blow something up).

this whole situation reminds me though, of how it would be better if we had 16km X 16km continents for 2000 players, but the game had radar bases scattered throughout a continent that can pick up aircraft miles away.

[RedKnights]

Yea I hate the idea of having all that modeled terrain not being explorable, and not being able to fly along coastlines, if it's like that it's just like being on a larger battlefield map... it would feel constraining... and that's not planetside.

Not to mention it seems like the continents will be isolated battles not connected to one another, and did they say there will only be like 4-5 maps?