Squad Deploy nerf exposes the horrible base design

Sorry. If you're never camped in a spawn room, then why are you so fixated on making it softer? Judging by the words of your mates, being camped/camper is what your squad does.

You should really limit who comes on to represent your squad if you guys can't keep it consistent.

In a global sense yes. I am focused on local engagements.

Campees have been in no-win situations since camping first started. You can't change that. What will you want when your current idea doesn't work?

heck, we've already been through one re-design, and the camping is still there. Camping is inevitable, no matter how hard you try. Slapping extreme restrictions on the source of your angst won't change camping.

Sure is. That's why you better stop the bad guy before he gets to a place where he can camp you.

You wrote it, not me.

Ah, a contrived incentive? Isn't it enough incentive to know that if they don't fight each other, then one side will lose for it?

Unless is someplace that you say they can't.

It doesn't fit in to gameplay. It hopelessly fragments the gamers in the game between infantry and armor, and never the tween shall meet. No thanks.

It doesn't fit into gameplay. It creates a new type of gameplay that only suits you; while at the same time wrecking the notion of combined arms. As for the other concenpts, they're just as bad. Self-serving, or at best, poorly thought out re: ramifications both intended and unintended.

Imagine that. Written words taken literally.

The same assessment that led you to these game "improvements"? Ok, gotcha.

Brace yourself for the real world. Delivering crap work get feedback that tastes real bad.

It may cure you of your campaholism.

Seriously, there is more to the game than running out of the spawn shield every 12 seconds.

If you're so into defense (that is a good thing), figure out how to do it properly, from a position that is removed from your enemy's objective.

I can picture you going into a museum and ****ing about how all those useless painters who ruined perfectly good canvases that were already fine art.

He's going to agree with you.

Edit: he did. Holy christ.

The appropriate and accurate response to this would get me banned.

What?

Just wait till you try out big-boy land irl. Harsh indeed, especially when one is hare-brained.

There aren't that many locales in which you can spawn yourself a counter-zerg of MBTs, leaving you with nothing but Lightnings or Harassers. Not everyone has access to the badass TR Harasser of Kill-'Em-All, nor can they fly. Well, they can, but they'll probably be blown out of the air sooner than they can appreciate fighting in a plane. If you go to a point in which there is a MBT, you've more than likely lost the point when you get there and the zerg is more than happy to eat you alive again, at which point, because your faction is probably more focused on doing other things than fighting a zerg that tend to come out the winner, you lose the next base as well because the zerg hasn't even gotten close to a square^cube ratio.

It gets worse with an organized zerg. They have an even higher square^cube ratio, and are therefore capable of hitting ridiculous, nigh-unstoppable sizes that are also capable of curb stomping anything in their path.

That is how damn near every defense I've been in run. Sure, sometimes the defenders pull a success out their ***, but typically because there's simply a draaaaaaastically higher amount defending than are attacking...and you know what? Sometimes even then the attackers win.

The game prohibits tanks from climbing mountains (except for a few exceptional glitched cases where you can do it with magburner, lol). And you said yourself that prohibiting where they can go is a crutch so you're implying that not allowing them to climb mountains is a crutch by itself (your words, no mine, yes, it sounds ridiculous, exactly my point). I don't see how designing bases in a smart way so that they can't be sieged by tanks (a base has to be defensible right?) is a crutch either.

Whether they are asked for or not, they are currently being given, just in a way you seem to like.

Just FYI, the guy you've been arguing with the last 15 pages over game mechanics has squad beacons in his top ten weapons.
#dunked

Wow man, you are spinning out of control!

Did I do that?

No, a base does not have to be defensible. It needs to be defended. Waiting until the base is completely invested to defend it is waiting until its too late.

...more enclosing stuff and nerfing stuff. Bad Plan™. Remove the lattice, remove the walls, Spread the points out, make XP's count for something, make tanks more expensive and stronger, and give mouse-yaw to aircraft, and GTF out of the way. Done.

....and, in closing, this was dam**d funny.

Want to know a good way to encourage players to defend bases? Make them more defensible.
WOAH

No, don't like it at all. You're right about them being given. Is that why they were asked for again in this thread? Because there have already been so many charitable handouts and now people are conditioned to ask for more and more? PS2...welfare edition.

All the things that have been implemented to help those that won't help themselves is sad. This thread pretends to present some new improvement, but all it really is: a crutch for not being able to keep the bad guy off one's spawn, and when that happens, being clueless about what to do about it.

I remember when they turned..... whatever it was (the desert continent) into a tank battle continent in PS1, it was a disaster, no one wanted to play there.

Personally I find it exceedingly strange that unlike any army that has every existed (since aircraft and tanks have existed) no one in PS2 has designed bases that exclude them. I mean the AA in PS2 is terrible, and the AV isn't much better either.

Clever tankers and pilots should be able to avoid much stronger weapons, yet for some reason SOE are setting up a contrived engagements where the only counter to air is air and AA and AV are kept artificially weak.

And you have to wonder with nanite technology why everything is drone warfare anyway.

Why not by making the camp completely intolerable and profitless when the base is overrun (the way it is now)?

Could it be that this option isn't acceptable because we don't know what to do when we're camped? Not trying to insult, just figuring out why we're so interested in 10 yard fights that reset every 12 seconds- especially when it will be repeated at the next base because we didn't get back soon enough.

Ya know, I gotta give you some honest advice. Quit hanging out with people that tell you its OK to blame the game for everything.

There's another population out there. One that looks to themselves for success and at themselves for failure.

Except there is nothing "welfare" about it, anymore than there is anything "hardcore" about it, it's just not working well from a game design point of view.

You've now used pyschobabble about defeatism and now in this post "get off welfare and get on your bike and find work" arguments (I use that term "charitably"), you only now need to claim immigrants are taking everyones kills and you'll have a full house!


People are trying to make the game better.

I suspect that is exactly what SOE are trying to do too, but quite a lot of people are disagreeing that its always working out that way and that is fair enough.

Like with the tower and in this case biolab changes.

The thing I personally don't understand is the old Biolab direct fire out of the spawn helped underdog defenders (a bit), but didn't really help dominant defenders much. Where as the new Biolab is very good for dominant attackers, but rubbish for underdog defenders. It seems totally the wrong way around.

Because those small, short engagements are what makes up a large chunk of the gameplay for a lot of players. I'm sorry if it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't really apply to me either, but just because it's not our problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. It's not an enjoyable experience, it's not good for player retention, and that's not good for the longevity of PS2. Saying "well maybe you should learn to do something different" does nothing to address the actual issue at hand.

You're my favorite person for the day.

Er... ok.

On your advice I'll not hang around with people that remember the past...... not entirely sure who they'll be though.

I am pretty sure it wasn't my fault that the tank combat change didn't work well in PS1 though.... as it wouldn't have been my fault had it succeed either.


But I'm puzzled that you don't think there should be stronger AV and AA given that you should think it should be a good idea (anyone with self-believe and intelligence would simply be able to play around it after all).