Need more limitations on deployment

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Axehilt, Jun 23, 2014.

  1. Axehilt

    This game has vehicles. You can resecure the point by using those vehicles to roll/fly up to the base, kill any sunderers, then get out and flip the point.

    If redeploying wasn't a magical teleport, you would stick on a front more. So in most base fights there will be players spawning from that base.

    So if you then changed bases to make the hard spawns more distant from the capture points, then the attackers would have to make a harder choice between containing the base or defending the point. This would make it easier for a defender to take out sunderers (it's already usually quite easy.) Now the enemy either is on the point (meaning you can safely pull vehicles from the hard spawn) or containing your hard spawn (meaning you can sneak in behind them.)

    If attackers then guard the point itself, you have much better options since you can spawn right at that hard spawn and pull vehicles of your own, which greatly empowers the defending force to push out.
    • Up x 2
  2. Cinnamon

    1. Objective, encourage logistics. Remove personal respawn time for spawn tubes, ams and vehicles. Instead have a cooldown for the individual spawn tube of a few seconds to throttle mass redeploys.

    2. Objective, help individuals and new players to get into fights with good starting positions. Add personal timer for drop pod. Untie it from squad beacon level and give it a personal cooldown. Allow manual deploy on any beacon placed in areas with reinforcements needed or any beacon placed by platoon. Instant action should only deploy on beacons placed by players. Fully certed squad beacon could allow it to be placed even when not a squad lead maybe with some more limits on cooldown.

    3. Objective, balance attack spawns with defence. Add cloaked ams to sunderers as a new cert. This could be balanced by giving it a longer spawn cooldown.
    • Up x 2
  3. MrJengles

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion and we have forums specifically to give feedback. Just because you disagree with people doesn't mean they have no right to comment on the game.

    There's a huge gulf between the near-extreme simulation of ARMA and the newer BFs (which are "simplified" more than the old ones). Planetside 2 should capitalize on that gap by attracting players who enjoy more strategy and depth than BF but not go the full distance to ARMA. That way, it occupies it's own niche. If Planetside falls short of that strategy it competes with many shooters, like BF, which have honed their gun play and great graphics etc.

    The original Planetside occupied that space, so it would be a disservice to people who loved that game to see PS2 dumbed down so far. Which makes more sense:
    -For players that did not play / would not have liked the original to expect that Planetside 2 should rip out fundamental mechanics that compliment the massive, strategic, combined arms gameplay, helping to set it apart from the alternatives, and tell the old crowd to go back to PS1.
    -Or, to expect it to be true to the original and, if that's not your thing, play the games that are and equally expect those developers to not make a sequel that suddenly throws away the things that were important to that style of game.


    The whole "redeploy to each base" meta is stripping the game of desirable gameplay that make it unique.
    -Massive maps? Who cares, people just redeploy.
    -Fighting over advantageous terrain with open, combined arms battles (which many people say they prefer over base fights)? Doesn't happen often enough, people just redeploy.
    -Transport vehicles that should be important assets for your side and targets on the enemy side, encouraging vehicle escort gameplay? Who cares, people just redeploy. Vehicles are left with no objectives and have nothing to do EXCEPT spam the spawn room. Excellent, fun gameplay there!

    As for the notion that the OP is the only one who wants more Logistics, that's simply a fallacy. Just for a start, I posted a thread here that calls for more transport which has 45 likes and plenty of positive comments. Of course, I'm not saying that's a big deal, there are plenty of more popular threads and less popular ones, my point is there's clearly more desire for this than you think.


    Finally, you need only take a look at the Roadmap to see that SOE are taking the game in a deeper, more strategic direction. They do want the game to end up in that spot I spoke of, and they are likely to be receptive to these concerns. Don't forget, SOE have even made large changes or swings in attitude based on feedback. I remember them saying they liked the Hex system and lattice wouldn't happen - the player base disagreed, so it did happen.

    Right now, the Resource Revamp essentially is a logistical system, which will be more apparent once they get ANTs and we see exactly the same sort of vehicle escort gameplay. It's just odd that the logistics stop there when transporting the infantry should be even more important than the resources! If that sort of gameplay and objectives is desirable, why only do half of it?
    • Up x 1
  4. MrJengles

    The proponents of redeploy cite this concern for new or solo players, such as yourself.

    Virtually all of the people asking for more logistics do acknowledge this, hence, most suggestions are for compromised, limited redeploy system and logistics rather than EVERYONE be expected to drive or fly.

    The current problem is not that the redeploy system exists, it's that it can ALSO be utilized by entire platoons, or multiple platoons, essentially the combined forces of multiple fronts, to completely overwhelm the attackers in a very short, unchallenging fight, then redeploy to another front before the timer runs out.


    The solution I'd like to see is a queue and increasing timer (say 7.5 sec per player) for reinforcement spawns such that individuals would still use it, but each squad would think "you know, we can just grab a single Galaxy from the Warpgate and be there in 30 secs to 1 min instead of this 1 min 30 timer".

    Additionally, instant action would remain for players when they login and every X minutes to bring players to a fight. Plus, bring back the PS1 HART system but restrict it to uncontested friendly bases as the counterpart to instant action and reinforcements needed. Together, individuals would be able to get to any friendly base or fight but restricted by 2 timers.
    • Up x 1
  5. MrJengles

    Both of you seem concerned about factions attacking undefended bases. If you don't mind, I'll quote my reply from another thread as it's not worth rewording everything:

    "People are too used to the current redeploy meta. You shouldn't have to redeploy to defend all the time. Every time you redeploy you leave less people on the old front and you're likely to have to come back anyway.

    With logistics, people would stick to their front for the most part and factions would even out their forces. None of this "redeploy overwhelming forces, win, redeploy back where you were before you lose it" mess we have now. That only works because you're taking the forces from multiple fronts and focusing them on one base at a time. If you couldn't do it, it would break up the zergs.

    Yes, sometimes a faction would shift their forces to put more pressure somewhere, or attack an undefended base. However, the whole point of them doing so is to try to catch the enemy off guard. Right now, that strategy is completely worthless since the enemy will redeploy in seconds.

    Timers are long enough to transport forces over if you're paying attention. Maps aren't that big, it takes less than a minute to get to most fronts in a Galaxy.

    And so what if they DO take the base? That force is just as constrained as you so they're unlikely to try to shift front again. They'll head to the next base on the lattice and you'll be waiting for them."


    As Axehilt pointed out, if players think more in terms of defending each front then you likely will have forces already at that base when it is attacked. If it's enough to defend then there's no problem. If not then you might expect reinforcements to be on their way, meaning that the attackers actually have to split their forces between taking the base and intercepting the reinforcements. Again, this gives people more objectives beyond a capture point, creates vehicle escort/intercept gameplay and spreads out our massive populations instead of piling them all into 1 to 3 little buildings.
    • Up x 2
  6. Frostiken

    The server merge + the idiotic populations now makes me even more strongly wish there was some sort of mechanic that limited how many players you could just crap out in an instant. So far the vast majority of battles are just a massive unstoppable zerg force teleporting around the map every five minutes. You'll have maybe 40 vs 40, and then suddenly you see the population shift to 80% enemy overpop and two full platoons pour out of the spawn room.

    Where the **** is the fun in this?

    Again, I wish there was some sort of spawn queue to stop this, but whatever, this game is full of and made by children who get angry if they don't get instant gratification and can't do anything they want, anytime they want.

    Or, you know, god forbid we go back to the PS1 mechanic of NTUs being required to spawn a player, so a giant platoon dump would complete drain a base of NTUs and flip it to neutral. GOD FORBID WE MAKE ANYONE IN THIS GAME USE THEIR BRAIN. I seriously, actually think that people believe redeploying is some sort of brilliant tactic.
  7. Frostiken

    The mentality that anything that introduces any sort of hurdle is 'not fun' and therefore bad is why PS2 is so broken.

    It's not fun falling down mountains. Therefore I should be able to fly!

    It's not fun dying out of the blue. Therefore snipers should require TWO headshots to kill!

    It's not fun having to use teamwork to leverage a heavy tank. Therefore it should take ONE person to drive a tank! Oh wait, we already got that, and that worked out really well, didn't it?
  8. MorganM

    It used to be much harder to redeploy around months ago. Your choices were more limited and it took 40 seconds per base (10 to redeploy and 30 sec cooldown). What it promoted was boring ghost capping. A handful of people would push through with no resistance capping base after base until they finally hit a base people could redeploy to or someone actually pulled a gal and dropped on them.

    Sorry but your idea hs been tried and tested; doesn't play out like you theoroize. It's was ghost capping is boring and redeploying 3 to 10 times to get somewhere at 40 seconds a pop was frustrating and not worth it.
  9. Axehilt


    It played out great in Planetside 1.

    My suggestion of putting a limit on chain-redeploying was sort of my solution rather than simply popping a dialog, "Hey dummy, why are you wasting your own damn time with this slow chain-redeploy trash when you could be flying like a magnificent golden eagle towards that base in like 45 seconds!?!?"

    Ghost-capping is simply incompetent defending.
  10. Hermit92

    The base offense/defense definitely needs some reworking eventually. Currently you can have a squad or platoon attack an empty base, only to have a huge force spawn there minutes later and push you out. Your squad can be completely set up on a point, but that doesn't mean much when population advantage is massive for defenders.

    I can't really point out what the problem is, but it just doesn't feel right. I don't really like to bring up real life comparisons but bear with me here:

    In real life I would imagine an important strategic post to be well guarded. The attackers have to make an effort to get inside, where they continue fight the defenders. In planetside 2 its all backwards. Attackers easily waltz into a major facility like an amp station or tech plant. The defenders then respond and all of a sudden an army materializes at an empty base, and attackers can barely prepare for the amount of people that will show up.

    Alright so maybe SOE can implement some sort of visual icon to show an incoming zerg before it reaches a base. As for the spawn I hope there is some kind of limit but I don't have much ideas right now.
    • Up x 1
  11. Tuco

    *hits like button twice*

    oh dang

    *hits like button 3 times*
  12. tundranvaltias

    In a bit of a hurry so didn't have time to read everything people were saying and since this was about deploying.. I personally like the current deployment system. I can deploy from base to base when I'm soloing and defend my factions bases. The only problem I have with it that it allows for people to spawn in bases that are surrounded, that should not be permitted.

    For example Allatum biolab. It is surrounded by NC and VS and the whole TR faction is there defending it and losing everything else. If the enemy can encircle the base, deployment there shouldn't be possible from outside, those that are inside the base when it gets encircled should be able to spawn there if they want to but nobody from outside should be able to unless a connection is re-established. Or something along those lines. Feel free to correct me if I'm totally wrong. Or just stupid.
  13. maxkeiser

    No limitations are needed. This is a sandbox game. Let people spawn where they like, organise where they like.

    People need to stop asking for pointless changes.
  14. Drol

    Now that was a point well made and thought out and something i can get behind.
    This is not the point previously made from what i read, which more resembled "when i attack, people spawn and it's not fair!".

    Thanks, this makes complete sense.
  15. hansgrosse

    In my ideal PS2, spawning would only be allowed at warpgates and a couple outposts on each continent specifically meant to be forward bases; all other outposts/bases/facilities would lack spawn areas, but would provide lots of incentive for a faction to own them, urging the playerbase to venture out and fight for them. Sunderers would still serve as mobile spawn points, but outside of those, transportation to and from the fight would fall to Sunder-buses, Galaxies, Harassers, Flashes, etc.

    Of course, I also know I'm very much in the minority, so I can't expect to see an MMOFPS that suits my tastes any time soon. If ever. :'(
    • Up x 1
  16. Citizen H

    Logistics don't matter in this game because of the lax restrictions on redeploy.
    They should matter.

    -We have transport vehicles like Gals and Sundys, but they aren't used as such. They should be the main form of transporting fighting forces instead of the Redeploy feature.

    -If 6 players attack an undefended, or nearly undefended base, 30 members of an outfit should not be able to materialize there instantly to defend.

    -Additionally, they should not be able to pull dozens of vehicles from there, also instantly.


    Spawning players using a base's spawn, mass redeploys and pulling vehicles from anywhere needs to have a choke of some kind.
  17. Konfuzfanten

    We got social simulators for that.

    If you think forcing ppl to wait longer will improve pop then you are delusional.
  18. hansgrosse


    Yes. The PS2 playerbase is largely attention-deficit and, when it comes to content, metathesiophobic (but that's a topic for another thread). Most will not bother to play a game that requires them to wait more than .0628 seconds to shoot something. IMO this pervasive desire for instant gratification is a big part of what is holding the game back and preventing it from being all it can possibly be. I, for one, would love to spend hours ferrying people from the faction warpgate to various battles and back in a Galaxy. I'd also find it thrilling to know that, from both a gameplay and a strategic perspective, my character's life counts for so much more than it would in the current spawn-centric system.

    You're absolutely right though; if SOE were to improve the game by restricting spawn locations then a lot of the playerbase would probably look for something else to play, and that's ultimately bad for SOE. If enough people stick around to populate even a single server, I'd still consider the change a win, but it's doubtful that SOE would because it means a significant loss of income for them. Alas...
  19. Canno


    It's about how the time is spent. Not like they're sitting on the sidelines doing nothing. Anything can happen between leaving and destination. In the mean time people used to get a chance to talk. People used to pick up people because getting bodies to the fight mattered.

    Now it's all instant action, quick deploys, and zergs. Again, how's the population been since they've made the move to now now now action?

    Problem being if they switch back to a more tactical game some people, no names mentioned, will leave because they actually have to interact...
    • Up x 2
  20. HadesR


    Console Arcade game ...

    Nothing else to say ..
    • Up x 1