Integrate global redeployment within the respawn system. Recent changes do not cut it, here is why

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by UberBonisseur, Sep 4, 2013.

  1. UberBonisseur

    WARNING: this post tries to argue against a dev. If ever I mysteriously disappear in the next few days or be burned at the stake, let the world know that I liked to live dangerously.


    So, Malorn himself has visited reddit not so long ago explaining the changes in the respawn system to make it fit the Lattice. Back then I objected some points, but not in detail.
    As the frustration has grown, it is time again to express my concerns over the current flaws in the respawn logic as I and many people I've discussed with see them.
    So far, I've encounter two schools of thought about how deployment in general should work.
    1. The pro-deployment, which want it to be used as a legitimate means of transportation across the map, making every single base available for deployment and ease of movement.
    2. The anti-deployment, which would remove any deployment location barring warpgate and the outpost/sunderer they are currently spawning at; in order to promote vehicular movement on the field. Pretty simple
    First objection: What about the current system, it's none of these ?
    The answer: The current system is a bad n°1.
    • I can ALREADY redeploy globally wherever I like. Using /suicide multiple times in a row allows me to travel from base to base to base. Putting limitations such as "can only redeploy to the next base" are pointless, because in the end, 15sec + 15sec = 30sec, only with many more clicks and loading screens
    Okay, so, now, why can't we just redeploy ANYWHERE with timers based on distance, or number of bases along the lattice line ?
    Malorn did not agree with a global redeployment system. The main reason being (full quote):


    Condensed, it's something along the lines of:
    You shouldn't be able to globally redeploy otherwise outfits would crush any form of attack instantly.



    And to this I say: nonsense

    Because reasons:
    • Nowhere is stated that the deploy times should only take 15 seconds. The farther the base, the longer the deployment. Deploying at the other side of the map could take about two minutes.
    • YOU CAN ALREADY DO THIS IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. Squad deploy. Reinforcements needed. Beacons. The only difference is that only ONE PERSON OUT OF TWELVE has to actually move to the combat zone.
    • The small fight argument is way off. The lattice system by design creates stagnation, at least more than the Hex, by pushing big battles over smaller fights.
    .
    .
    But, okay, let's explore further the concept of global redeployment and the potential migration of entire platoons from one side of the map to another.


    The first point would be: No need for "Squad deploy", "Leader deploy location" or "Reinforcements"anymore. Consequences ?
    • DEAD PEOPLE DO NOT FIGHT. If you wish to redeploy an entire platoon to the other side of the map, that's 12 players NOT FIGHTING for at least 25 seconds, as opposed to 1 out of 12, the leader, in the CURRENT system. If they wanted to redeploy to their original location, which is the frontline they've just left, they'd out of any fight for another 25 seconds. Changing frontlines could have huge repercussions because DEAD PEOPLE DO NOT FIGHT. Redeploying implies you are removed from the world. You are not physically fighting on the field. You are weakening a frontline deliberately to attack another, which makes that frontline vulnerable. You can not always afford to do so.
    Second point:
    • DEPLOYING DOES NOT REPLACE GALAXIES. Coming out of a spawnroom and fighting your way off players from within the spawn room on a spawncamped base does not equal a surgical drop on top of the control point. Gal resecures will still be the most efficient strategy
    Third point:
    • ZERGS ARE LAZY AND IMPATIENT. No, your average lonewolf will not bother leaving his frontline/fight to resecure a base; this has been proven times and times again during the Hex system. There won't be flocks of random players redeploying from one base to another if it implies WAITING.
    And finally, the fourth point: THERE ARE WAYS TO PREVENT ZERG-DEPLOYMENTS
    • Increasing returns on successive deployments. Redeploying multiple times in a short timeframe increases the duration of following deployments.
    • Mass deployment alarms in the form of blinking lights on the spawn room, to let the attacker know if a big deployment is coming its way to resecure and adapt.
    • Redeployment queues, acting as a funnel to only let large platoons in the queue spawn one soldier at a time
    No, the current spawn mechanics are not really satisfying or streamlined. It needs to either shift to a Global model or a No-deploy model to be entirely polished. It's not as much as allowing flexibility than just integrating things into the UI to make an overall coherent and easy to use deployment model.


    Discuss.
    Sorry for the formatting, copy pasted from Reddit (ugh)
    • Up x 12
  2. Tristan

    As someone in an outfit that absolutely abuses redeploy, Needs Reinforcement spawn locations, and spawn beacons... I fully support limiting spawn choices and making vehicle transportation more attractive.
    • Up x 20
  3. Flapatax

    Too many words. But make galaxies more than sad skywhales.
    • Up x 5
  4. Ash87

    Honestly, Galaxies and transports should be the main means of transporting you to a fight. Following that up, Beacons should be there to provide an alternative, for squads, but means that the squad leader should be At the drop location. Further, beacons should drop in a narrow cone around the spawn beacon. That way, they can be used to get onto a wall, or whatnot, but if you want a risky squad deployment, that will put 12 guys in an advantageous position that they can then use to dominate a base... I'm sorry, but It should be a high risk and high reward thing.

    You say that galaxies are still the most efficient way to do all of this... And that is great, but frankly they are underused because of the very thing you say above: What is the point of using one, when you can just drop anywhere you want? It costs less resources, and is less risk to just use squad deploy or what have you.
    • Up x 7
  5. UberBonisseur

    I also said:

    Squad deploy is obsolete and abused by many.

    Beacons are only "overpowered" due to very little factors:
    -Beam render range
    -SL swapping
    -No "deploy" warmup time


    A vulnerable, visible, single use beacon would be much more balanced than the current version.
  6. IamDH

    I see 2 issues


    1- The necessity to use a vehicle when its so easily countered
    2- Taking too long to reach a battle
    • Up x 1
  7. Posse

    The problem is that the deployment system right now is quite inpredictable, there are some situations where I can deploy to X base, but all of a sudden I can't do it, many times it happened to me that I selected the place to redeploy but had to wait the 10 sec cooldown and in the middle of those 10 secs, that option dissapeared (and not because that base was capped) leaving me saying "WTF?"
    • Up x 3
  8. Tristan

    Limiting spawn options would necessitate increasing the time it takes to take some bases. Like taking three minutes to cap a biolab.
  9. UberBonisseur

    You can't "limit" spawn choices.


    It's either Global or None.
    • Up x 1
  10. Tristan

    Sure you can limit them. You only allow spawning within the current base (including outposts that are not separate hexes and all sunderers), and one spawn forward and back in the lattice. This would make it take an unreasonable amount of time to spawn hop to other locations. The spawn beacon changes coming might take care of the other issue.
    • Up x 1
  11. Paisty

    I agree with the Op. I hate redeploying 5 or 6 times to get to where i wish to attack from.

    Vehicles cost to many resources and die way too fast to be considered reliable transport in this game.

    Using a flash to go 600m is fine imo, but anything beyond that and it will flip long before you get where you are going.

    Sundies are to slow and way too high of a priority target for the enemy. The Bulldog and the default weapons are a Sunderers best AV defense and the AA options are crap. (their cost is fine for the utility they bring though.)

    Harassers are a decent option but cost to much and do not carry enough people to be viable transport.(their cost is fine for the firepower they bring though.)

    Galaxies are to slow and require your platoon to re-deploy usually to WG and waste time there.

    So, although I hate redeploying 5 or 6 times to get to where i wish to attack from, it's still faster and allows the group to move remain together, with the least organization. Partially due too the barriers meant to keep you in one lettuce lane.
  12. UberBonisseur

    It's the current system minus reinforcements needed.

    Use /suicide to spawn hop from outpost to outpost. Still faster than loading a gal, and this should change.
    It should be streamlined. As I said, 15 + 15 = 30. Deploying two, three bases in the back or in the front should be done in a single click.
  13. Tristan

    I said following the lattice. Spawn hoping to another lane needs to go.
  14. UberBonisseur

    Every lane goes to the warpgate.

    Deploying to the warpgate is instant.
    Thus, deploying to other lanes equals spawn hopping all the bases from the warpgate.
  15. Tristan

    And you're still going to be spawn hoping at least 2-3 bases forward unless you're really close to the warpgate. There are only a few situations where spawning in would be quicker than taking a vehicle.
  16. Paisty


    If I wanted to spend most of my playtime driving around or even more boring, being driven around, I would play a racing game.

    You want more vehicle targets, I want to fight as infantry. Never mind the problems I already posted above.

    This seems to be the 2 different views. The game has lost enough players already without another reason for a "one side or the other" change like some people seem to be pushing for.

    I pray no one starts with the realism argument, this is a fantasy world we are fighting in. I can walk around in the open and be invisible like Harry Potter or a Hobbit.
  17. Tristan

    Actually, what I want is a more realistic response time to threats. I spend a majority of my time as infantry.
  18. PWGuy93

    Tell that to squad leaders corpses that are used as deploy points ;)

    Adding to the discussion, don't forget to take into account the road map options coming

    Resource revamp
    With one currency (infantry, vehicle, air currency) being in the same pool, players will have to make decisions based on a single pool. No buying mines or using a max or pulling a liberator or a tank at whim. With a shared resource pool and local resource pool which effects bases, shields, et jumping around could become "costly", as well new resource/energy use means more fighting one hex at a time and holding bases which effect energy/local resource pools. No energy - you lose. No connecting bases to supply energy - you lose. Resources create an altered meta-game element, the lattice effects something else besides teleportation.

    Vehicles get more play and become more important with the changes while not diminishing infantry's role. Energy/resource transportation (speculation as a hybird Sunderer) means tanks and air have a new "support" role in guarding the convoys.
    Convoys introduce a new meta-game element. Players will find reward in being in the convoy instead of teleporting. The ground game gets enhanced, jumping from base to base has less meaning as more fights will be between bases.

    Supporting your use of Galaxy's in battles, Galaxy revamp includes transport of vehicles, Warpgate revamp includes transportation of vehicles aka vehicle zoning. The teleportation deployment we enjoy today becomes less important while Galaxy's become more important, again emphasis on vehicles and their contained players.

    Looking at Hossin and its layout and design I can see more options for vehicle players and infantry with less reliance on teleportation. Some areas you really want a Galaxy drop based on terrain. The spawn rooms make it easier to "get out" of the spawn rooms and engage. Which means less reliance from players at other locations, the base your on, you essentially set up home for a while as others work the hex based on your bases energy supply - which needs defending.

    Won't know how game play is effected until it's all implemented, but my personal view is that teleporting will happen less as players opt into vehicle transportation based on reward and actual fight engagement - which I think will be outside of bases more frequently once implemented.
  19. Phazaar

    I realise now that the actual solution in my mind would be to do away with bases altogether. Have urban areas and non-urban, yes, but **** spawn rooms and capture points. Have objectives. These objectives can be moved, and are of different types (protect vs use vs destroy versus capture etc), but all to do with using the territory around them (so an important thing may have already been created, and you have to 'capture it' and get it back to base, or you might need to detonate a mineshaft to weaken Vanu's use of an area in order to push on to the 'capture' bit, and with that captured you might then finally have a shot at getting to that big machiney thing that would let you start to use the area you took by blowing the mineshaft up, and having that would then net you the cool thing that the other team want to capture... etc...)

    By limiting the number of objectives and the locations they can be moved to, you not only create the lattice in effect but without the stale inanity, but also you can have them change dynamically according to population levels such that fights are actually easy to find, and if cleverly implemented enough, to split an over-pop faction to fight on more fronts than a lower pop faction etc.

    It would also re-validate vehicle based combat, and the necessity to use transports instead of rely on static spawns (great, so you can respawn in this building over there. Sucks that they've got the objective in the back of a Galaxy that's running like it's Chernobyl - maybe you should be getting vehicles up to chase it down, and once it's back on the ground, get your Gal drop in to secure the surrounding territory.

    This would then make the battlefield an entirely dynamic place, with only player choice involved in whether you can spawn and where, which 'rush lane' you need to take to get to your objective etc. It would actively punish a team for being over pop without punishing any team member - you're not going to be on 50% health, an XP reduction, or shooting rubber bullets as some have suggested, instead, you'll be fighting on an even footing where you are, and your team mates will be fighting on an even footing where they are... It's just your team will be in far more fights than the other team so that merely having more people online doesn't win you the battle immediately.





    Okay, so it's taken me a year, but I finally had an idea I think isn't totally **** for the metagame. Sad that it's too late, eh :/
    • Up x 1
  20. Paisty

    Wow, some of you must really hate this game to want so many radical changes. If you get the changes you are after, do not be surprised when pops drop even more.

    Talk about lack of foresight.