Sunderer No-Deploy Zones: Show

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Death Reaper, Jul 10, 2013.

  1. Death Reaper

    Many months ago, as most of you will recall, SOE added the roadmap feature to the forums, with the intention of receiving feedback from their playerbase on proposed changes, in order to ensure that only positive changes were implemented. To effectively carry out this task, a topic was created for each idea SOE felt was worth sharing, and a simplistic yet efficient voting system was integrated into each topic, for the purpose of acquiring an easy-to-understand "yay/nay" response. All those months ago, when that system was first introduced, this topic was created - and, for all of those months, not for one single day has its rating gone above zero. At the time of this topic's posting, 1,750 people took time out of their day to convey their opinions on the addition of that mechanic, and the overwhelming majority of them not only voted against it, but gave specific responses as to why it was a poor idea and what other measures could serve a similar purpose without destroying the mechanics of the game.

    Fast-forward to the present, to today, to the addition of GU12; a world in which the new content consists of nothing aside from bug fixes, a few nerfs, cosmetic items, and - as the lauded new feature - sunderer no-deploy zones on two of the three continents; the very same feature which was thoroughly shot down for almost as long as the game has existed out of closed beta. I am entirely uncertain as to what SOE has been reading, but we, the players of the game, have made our opinion very clear for a very long time, only to be completely disregarded.

    I usually make my best attempts to avoid "forumsiding", but I cannot refrain from speaking my mind about this issue. I have no problem waiting for updates, I have no problem with updates that do not add new things. Bug fixes are great, cosmetic items are great. What I take direct offense to, however, is the blatant and unfettered lack of common sense being exhibited with the addition of the only actual gameplay-related feature which was wholly determined to be a poor idea by the system which they themselves decided to set up in order to prevent this exact situation from occurring.

    Having to walk a larger distance from a Sunderer does not add "depth" to the game. It does not promote "tactics". It does not ensure "fairness". It does not help defenders who are already too terrible to keep a Sunderer off their doorstep, it does not help attackers to become more "skilled" by forcing them to run a longer distance. It does not stop ghost capping or eliminate spawn camping or contribute anything positive to the game whatsoever. It only serves as an annoyance and a detriment to everyone involved. Of course, I cannot possibly hope to convey the exact specifics of why this is terrible as well as everyone else who has already spent several months voicing their opinions in the medium SOE chose to create, so if you truly want to get technical about it, I recommend heading over there.

    Now, do not mistake my intentions; I do not hate or even dislike SOE, I do not hate Planetside 2, and I will still continue to play this game, because even though it has its moments such as these, it is nonetheless the best FPS out there. That being said, I will be avoiding Indar and Amerish like the plague, and I sincerely hope you consider doing the same. The only way this can get rescinded is if SOE sees noticeable declines in the populations of the continents which they have erroneously chosen to implement this "feature" upon, and it's people like us who have to make those population declines as noticeable as possible.

    EDIT: Not sure why the title appears to have bugged out, so my apologies on that.
    • Up x 25
  2. zukhov

    Personally I was very surprised at how small the no deploy zones are. About the same radius as a deployed AMS in the middle of a base.
  3. HerpTheDerp

    Yeah... but you're VS.

    VS infiltrator.
    • Up x 4
  4. Spookydodger

    I'll try it out just to see if maybe the developers had some particular wisdom to their actions, but I imagine it will not be of any real merit.

    The biggest detriment I can imagine to this will be amp stations. If you shield break your way into that inner stronghold, you won't be able to deploy a sunderer inside the room anymore.
  5. Death Reaper

    All of the larger facilities get toasted by this; attackers - or defenders - at Amp Stations and Tech Plants can't deploy from inside the building, and defenders at Bio Labs can no longer send out numbers quicker by deploying from under the dome. These were all considerations thoroughly considered and addressed by the playerbase; considerations which became just as thoroughly ignored.

    Even if this was the Holy Grail of gameplay additions, though, there is still no viable excuse for asking the playerbase's opinion on something, receiving one of the most negative responses to ever grace the roadmap system, and then not only going ahead with it regardless, but also skipping right past the public test server with it.
    • Up x 5
  6. Loegi

    Biggest reason why it was downvoted that much was because of not enough details surrounding the system and that it only affects attackers. In fact, they still haven't cleared it up, and you can only know how it works by testing it manually. I doubt the majority of downvoters are still playing the game even, since it was one of the first things on the roadmap.

    Also pretty funny to see that it was merely delayed after they said they would delay it to look at the options, without actually doing anything different.
    • Up x 3
  7. DukeFlash

    I'm ok with not being being able to deploy a sunderer under Bio Labs... because attackers had no way to capture that teleport and use it themselves.
  8. Spookydodger


    The last part is the most damning thing. I can see many situations where "the majority" can be very wrong. However if it was never on the test server, then I don't know what to say.
  9. Cl1mh4224rd

    You can't do that anyway. The Gate Shield Diffuser and S-AMS occupy the same slot (Utility), so you can't have both equipped at the same time.
  10. Ibuprofen

    You GSD in with a Harasser or Sunderer, and then you hack the vehicle terminals inside and pull an AMS sundy.
    • Up x 2
  11. Van Dax

    The only place this was needed was small bases (non-facility/non towers) at every other place it has only detracted from the strategy elements that were unique to these base types.
    • Up x 3
  12. Ronin Oni

    I still support this change myself.

    Attackers had spawn advantage over defenders... that was pretty stupid
    • Up x 1
  13. SoliderRusH

    SOE just destoryed a common tactic for taking or defending TPs.
    Gal drop would only works now with a huge force...u may take A but u cant hold it, because u cant get an AMS up. Same for attackers.

    SOE, it is good when players find thier own ways to fight! Now u need too much positions to defend or hold an attack at a TP.
    Only a Zerg or if DEF oder ATK is overpop at the TP will make it possible to get it.

    Important to know, when i am talking about the defenders I mean a small force of defenders, which have to respwan all the time far a way, ofc they cant use a sundy inside. Or rescue via Crash from the tunnels or Galdrop after SCU is dead or just lost. No way to get a backup spwan up. This is a big problem in a game where u die so fast and often. (u will die often and fast, if you are not a damn useless farmer just going forthe kills and ignoring bigger targets or working in a team)

    rly nerved by you ****.

    And just to prevent these shields at AMPs and TP..dont add them and underground fights much better ;)
  14. zukhov

    Having played with this change, it makes very little difference to most outposts and makes larger bases a lot more defensible. It also prevents allies from deploying their AMS in any number of places that do more harm than good so a positive change IMO.
  15. Kilmannan

    I've played with my Sunderer extensively today, and the end result of this No-Deploy zone is:

    • Sundies now race to the base to get the limited decent deploy points available
    • Other Sundies just go and hide somewhere or TK the Sundy that's been able to deploy
    • Attackers struggle to gain a foothold at all in some bases due to the geography and layout
    Some bases have only one or two suitable Sundy deploy spots again due to geography (Splitpeaks springs to mind. If a Sundy deploys outside the shield, you can't deploy another one until you're out the other side of the base.

    I can see the reasoning behind it, but I can also see the fail in it.

    This is a poor game mechanic, poorly implemented.
    • Up x 7
  16. Meeka

    No Deploy Zone is a good idea which was finally implemented.
    • Up x 1
  17. MorganM

    Just because someone asks for your opinion doesn't mean they absolutely must go with it.

    Or drop pod in.... fly in... run in on foot... drive in the back door / not-so-secret entrance that like 2% of the players actually attempt to defend.

    It was stupid how easy it was to just roll up with a bunch of sunderers and vomit players right onto objectives.
    • Up x 1
  18. Ibuprofen

    Just FYI, none of the methods you mentioned allow you to penetrate the center structure of an Amp Station without first blowing the vertical and horizontal shield generators. The "back door" is blocked by the SCU shield until the base is 50% capped and the entrance from the roof has vertical/horizontal shields at the bottom of the grav lifts.
  19. Phazaar

    Worst decision ever. So glad I have a new car to work on. Almost started the uninstall program... So close. Holding on for the ESF patch, but if that's ****, I'll be so glad not to have to deal with SOE until EQ3 makes it...
  20. joe smo

    I agree with one of the posters on the road map, tie it to a something that can be disabled by the attackers.
    Make it a side objective.
    • Up x 2