The problem with nerfing Redeployside

The problem with your sugestion is: Defenders DO have advantage.
The fact that said defender can respawn without having to defend their respawn point is a huge advantage.

That's another problem that creates zergs.

I believe you know that.

EG:
In 12x12 battle if the 12 attackers go take the point they will have 0 person defending their respawn point. Then once they "lose" the point, get wiped, the attack is over. If they leave one player defending the point it means that they have 8,3% less fire power to take the point. And it gets worse the bigger the number of players defending their respawn.

In 24x24 is the same.

In 48x48+ is where it stops to being true because now the attackers have enough ppl to camp their spawn point, enough ppl to bring multiple spawn points.

On general. The attackers have to make a flawless victory in smaller fights to capture anything. A perfect score. While the bigger the battle get, more forgiving the game gets.

And again zergs are formed because of what?


The only way to mitigate the defenders advantage of a safe spawn point is by giving the attackers a advantage. In this case a "first move" That matters.

1. "COD kids"
My impression it those who write this to describe casuals are kids themselves. Casuals also means adults with lives, where an hour is a big deal.

2. "Go play something else"
Well **** you too. The last thing this game needs is people leaving. What other game has 100v100 anyway?

3. "Redeployside" is already nerfed. When I'm lone wolfing it, there are times I have to redeploy 5+ times to get to the battle I want. AI instant action will never be good enough. When I look for a fight, I'm looking for 45%v55%. Instant action might set me there, but what happens when I arrive to see that 55% has 20 tanks spawn camping?

4. How big of a problem is this? I rarely see a 48 redeploy drop. I have seen good fight expand from 12v12 to 100+ people and remain fairly balanced. Zergs mostly stay in a lane. They usually peter out after a few hexes anyway. I would hate to see a redeploy nerf that would leave 12 people trapped against a 100+ zerg, that also can't slowly disipate through boredom redeploys.

uff..my first impression was that this vid should show that we don´t need redeployside to effectively defend whatever we want. the problem is:

1.u need many people working together as a team for the same goal

...yeah that was it. u need one ******* thing! (rec excluded) but NOO u cant expect people working together in an online multiplayer game..seriously thats insane! better we encourage lonewolfing for everybody to make it easier for this cod kiddys which are used to just play for themselfes and nobody else.

don´t want to travel around the continent? no problem your privat spawndevice will bring u to (nearly) every location u want

don´t want to use vehicles in a game that pretends to be combined arms? hell **** vehicles they are useless, infantry rules so u
are never forced to get into a vehicle if u dont want to.

you are angry that your weaponry is empire specific? poor u. but we will help u and make every weapon nearly identical to their other empire counterparts whith a slightly difference. additionaly we nerf everthing that is empire specific and works well (by the way that the ppa is still not nerfed is beyond me) we can sell NS weapons better anyway.

dont want to learn how to fly? OK why not. who wants to learn in a game just some idiots who spend hours and hours to master it. and it would be unfair if high skilled pilots could kill u, so we give u a lockons(coyotmissiles all that ****) that boring things that are so easy to use even my dog could use them.

and i´m sure there is much more people dont want to do in this game.

soo...lets see u dont want to drive or walk to the next base, u dont want to use vehicles, u dont want empire specific weapons and u dont want to learn other gameplaystyles besides cod infantry run and gun.(the supirior playstyle)

then what are u doing HERE? cod,bf is just around the corner u cant miss it.

(i´m sry for some exaggeration here and there but i had to write a bit black and white to discribe my frustration how u want to please these people who dont even really want to play THIS game and punish those who love it.
in the end i can understand and respect mustards opinion. u cant play without a lot of people and if there are many casuals there, and im not even sure about that, u have to make the game accesable for them, but thats not the direction i would like to see this game go unfortunately it does.)

I don't currently have time to read everything that's been said, so I apologize if a similar idea has already been stated, but I just had some random ideas.
1) Remove spawning at any sundy on the map and limit it to one hex on either side of the currently occupied hex (as connected by the lattice system)
2) Do the same for spawn room spawning including major facilities (since redeploy warriors to major facilities seems to be most people's problems)
3) Add a new terminal to the warp gate that allows spawning at any friendly owned base on the map. Give it like a 30 second timer to have some disadvantage/incentive to fly a gal.

This would alleviate the instant redeploys to save a base and would require a platoon to plan a little more in advance, plus it means you can only spawn in a spawn room and probably be camped if the situation is so dire you decided to move an entire platoon anyways.
But, it also allows lone wolves a way to get to any frontline they want (granted it will take a little longer but it's still very easily done by visiting one terminal)

Thoughts? Suggestions? Counters? Tell me I'm stupid for not reading the entire thread since it's been suggested before?

So you would enjoy having less 48 vs 48 fights and SOE to having to pull off the game since the game isn't generating enough revenue?

I also think you all realize that the developers don't even go on forumside anymore. If anything you should message these ideas on reddit instead of on here. If you guys can garauntee all the former planetside vets to flock back and they are majority then this would be a good idea. This thing is an idea but an idea that is possibly impossible due to current mindset of gamers. I again recommend players to adapt to the new mindset so you have an easier time. To those people who say I have more money, well that money I doubt won't flow as constantly as the money from the mothers of the younger gamers. These old guys will at some point stop gaming due to many reasons and aren't dependable cash outputs. I mean the chance of one of you guys getting some disease is higher than the chance of disease in younger people. Younger people have a whiles away till the worry of paying taxes so they are a more securable target. Most game companies now try to target younger audiences as they last longer while older audiences who I assume need to do something else besides gaming will slowly leave.

This game is losing player because it's a generic shooter game with the skin of futuristic.

The day SOE decide to make it a unique game. Players that are searching for unique game will play it.

Having 6000 players that 5500 are just waiting the next CoD release or BF4 to get fixed as a player base is a stupid you can get.

PS: I've said it. ATM the only thing that keep this game having players is the fact that is the only MMOFPS in the market.
The problem is: That's it. The only thing that Planetside2 differs from others is it, it's a MMOFPS. And slowly i'm losing the feeling of being in a MMOFPS. They should focus in it. Make the player feel like they are part of something bigger.
Meanwhile SOE is caring, and giving priority, about what the lone wolf wants....

If you want this game to be unique or innovative, you won't be getting as much sales as a game like COD. SOE made this game to generate sales and to promote their new engine. SOE does not care if this game fails even since they got other projects running. Sony does not care as their main cash cow is PS4. They literally used this game as a test and us as guinea pigs to see what they could do to attract the PS4 audience. I am also pretty sure the PS4 audience wants none of the nerf redeployside nonsense. The companies don't really care about what any of us say on forumside as they mainly are on twitter and reddit.

Makes me wonder... maybe if we made a petition to change planetside 2 to subscription model under conditions.(read: make the game unique)

SOE would care about the game... Maybe....

I was "enjoying" Hossin when suddenly I remembered this thread, why are game devs such sadists that they make places where I get stuck and have no other way getting out than redeploy? I was even pod-dropped to a steep pit only light assault could have gotten out of. Graaahhh. Getting sick of Hossin and constant redeploying.

I fear this thread has taken a classic derailment and left us in the weeds, discussing some rather nuanced things.

Redeploying should have some modest limitations. It is a mechanic that can be used to encourage even pop fights, provide a fun experience for ALL players, and keep both attackers and defenders on their toes, as the map can change very quickly. Limitations such as preventing players from redeploying once a hex reaches a pop threshold of 50% is a good thing that keeps some outfits in check.

Is it perfect? No. There are subtle adjustments to the mechanics that can be further made.

There are many reasons to redeploy. Only one of them is "taking a whole platoon and moving it instantly to defend a base". Personally I think I most often redeploy when I find that my faction has more than enough players in a hex and I start looking to see where else I might be needed. In this way, redeploy helps dilute the zerg. I also redeploy when I am getting hopelessly zerged, either to get a vehicle and defend the next base, or to another lane where I won't be stuck in my spawn room.

If a faction is constantly using redeploy to move from fight to fight, they are not making a concentrated effort to attack. Redeploy is primarily a defensive action. If you want to take territory, you will have to pull sundies, galaxies, supported by air and armor, in order to secure spawn points for your soldiers to push into a base. There is no replacement for gal dropping maxes through the battle and onto a point building. As much as some people bemoan redeployment, the reality is that a faction will struggle if they don't push out.

There is a lot of danger in making changes to redeploy. From stale or empty fights to loss of new and solo players, the quality of the Planetside experience, which hinges on good fights and player-driven combat, is threatened by changing this mechanic. That doesn't mean it is perfect, or that changes can't be made. But when I read posts in which players take the furthest extreme viewpoint that we should essentially be pulling a vehicle or walking to every single fight only to get 10 thumbs up, I have to speak up and post an opposing viewpoint.

I find plenty of open field vehicle battles and static battle lines that can last for hours. The game isn't dominated by redeployment. It is a part of the mix, a method used by many but not at all times. Please consider the consequences of changing this mechanic carefully, before pushing for changes that could kill our fights and leave me sitting on an empty point wondering where everyone is at.

With the way it works now, You often have to reploy 4-6 times to get where you want.

It faster to get a plane and jump out

I never understood why someone would want to jump out of a perfectly good plane....

I have to entirely disagree, redeploying is very harmful to the game right now.

1. It would be more fun seeing a base is in trouble then having to quickly get into a gal or pull some sundies to drive over hoping you could reach it in time, fighting through road blocks the enemy sets up to slow you down, then finally reaching the base and trying to push them out!. Instead we have "redeploy---- 10s later --- ok charge----- ok done redeploy back to other base... wow thats exciting..." They might need to increase base cap timers but it would make the game much more exciting, AND it would serve to bring a greater level of tactics, right now you can't counter a zerg because it can move from 1 side of the map to the other in basically 10s (perhaps 20-30 if it needs to bounce a couple of times), how do you take a base when 100 people could swarm in from the centre of it any second?

2. Defence still helps offence though, if you don't need to worry about defending any bases because you can redeploy back to them in 10s you can zerg everything in 1 place then just move it about as you need in seconds, if you couldn't do that you'd need to push the entire front at once. Lets look at it like this, can you imagine if in WW2 Russia could redeploy from 1 side of the country to the other in 10s? they'd just put MILLIONS of people in each fight and redeploy around, hell china could do that now and completely destroy the world. Its not fun all it does is mean numbers win and tactics are thrown out the window.

3. If they don't stop you they lose everything on that side, do you think people cap 1 base then leave? no they keep going. Not to mention this could be used to counter zergs, if they have their entire army in the east the entire west is up for grabs until they send people over in vehicles who then need to make their way back to the other side to join the fighting there again. Right now reinforcing a base isn't even a decision, it takes 10s so you may as well zerg it then head back to what you were doing, if it would take 10mins to get there and back you'd need to carefully plan who you send, how many, do you really need that base.


And for those complaining about the time to reach bases and what not thats simple, get a vehicle and drive it takes a few seconds to drive to the next base and theres generally sundies, they are just empty now because people just redeploy and wait for them to setup rather than bothering to go with them.

As for how it would work on death, it could let you redeploy to an adjacent base or sundie in the hex you died in IF you die to an enemy (so people don't suicide to move across the map), that way when an attack fails you can defend the next base and keep attacking by deploying into a sundie nearby.

It doesn't need to stop entirely, it could be a resource to redeploy with a timer so you can redeploy say a short distance with a 5min CD and a small cost or a long way with a 20-30min CD and a huge cost, making you chose between tanks or getting there quickly.

It would open up vehicle use and could be great for adding more options, right now a sundie doesn't need all those passenger slots as nobody uses them like that, as I said they wait for them to setup them redeploy in, especially now you can redeploy straight into them without them being setup if its your squads.

The current system is just awful, its designed entirely for casual gamers who don't know much about gaming or how 1 thing affects another, and no I don't like using the term casual gamers as it sounds pretentious but thats the simple truth, if they weren't worried about people who play 1-2 hours a night finding it hard to find a fight they wouldn't have this system as its bad in just about every way except helping those people or for making the game like CoD/BF where instead of a huge war you need to pay attention to its more lots of mini maps you redeploy between as you like. But changing this wouldn't even hurt them that much, they could still move about with redeploying just not as freely, they could learn to use vehicles to get around which isn't hard and they should do anyway.

Hell if they want they can make 1 server where they fix this and make the rest casual servers so those of us who want more indepth tactics can have fun and the BF/CoD fans can enjoy switching maps (bases) like in the game they use to play.

The trouble with redeployside is you get 3½ minutes of ghostcapping (not fun) and 30 seconds of action before you get crushed by a superior force (also not fun). That's partly down to the capture timer mechanics, but it's also down to the fact that defenders have a guaranteed permanent indestructible spawn at the base so they don't have to defend anything to let them redeploy in, and that you can save a base every minute by redeploying.

If you could still deploy 1 territory away from a contested battle then it would take at most a couple of minutes to walk to the front line, even if you didn't want to join a squad or hop in a Sunderer or Galaxy. And if it took longer to move between bases at opposite sides of the map, you wouldn't see people bringing 3 squads to a 1-12 fight, because that's taking 3 squads out of the faction forces for a few minutes and will lose territory elsewhere.

All redeployside needs is an SCU in every base.

Is has become more prominent during alerts, based on what I have witnessed.

Interesting read.

In my opinion, the redeploy system can be fun and a useful tool in certain places, particularly on a small scale, but other times it is deeply damaging to battle flow, strategy, quality battles etc. The total effect it has on the game is no where near as beneficial, or enjoyable in a deep sense, as more logistics would be.

This is going to be a really long reply, sorry in advance. I hope you get a chance to read it all Mustarde as I'd like to hear your opinion on the larger vision. I feel that people get stuck far too quickly on "I have to wait X seconds before I can pew pew?!" and never truly give it an honest chance. Personally, I value the quality of engagements far more over the quantity.

I've highlighted some lines to make it easy to skim read and get the gist.

-EDIT- Huh, so long it has to be broken into 2 posts

This is the usual first criticism - that logistics will hurt newer and solo players. If we were to remove redeploy entirely and focus completely on logistics I'd agree. Instead, a lot of the suggestions are actually a middle ground about limiting redeploy so that squads and platoons can't use it as much but individuals still can.

Personally I favor a redeploy queue that makes every full squad think "it's faster if we just grab a galaxy". It takes ~1 minute or so for them to fly to any front. Since all the platoons and squads won't be in the system, the redeploy timers should be kept pretty short for individuals (who aren't as organized and won't be requesting a spawn all at the same time anyway).

I don't see how the feeling of defending a point, whether against the odds or not, is unique to a redeploy system. Let's say the fight is a really close one, with 50/50 population, and no reinforcements show up; you'd get a similar feeling of protecting the objective and too many mistakes will cost you the fight.

Now let's say the enemy look at the map, see a base with a couple minutes left and go back to the Warpgate to load up in a Galaxy. Again, the reinforcements show up with a minute left on the timer, they take a hail of flak on the way in, all drop and make a coordinated attack on the point. This time you're outnumbered and it's exactly the same feeling of attempting to repel the defenders or, from the other side, rush the point in the last moments.


It's true that mass redeploy doesn't always work, but isn't that a little like saying a weapon that people complain is overpowered is fine because it doesn't win 100%, and people are only remembering the bad encounters? We don't have to reach a 100% unstoppable extreme to recognize when an option is outperforming the alternatives and has become unreasonably powerful to expect opponents to deal with.

This is the case with redeploy. Occasionally, I've seen the response that the game should stay as it is and people can who prefer to travel can do that, but let those who wish to redeploy do so. This is a false choice.

To explain, let's take the poll a while ago on how people feel about the average TTK - a large portion said they wanted longer engagements, another said keep it the same, and a small number said it should be faster. This supposed choice would be a bit like saying if you want a longer TTK you can choose a gun with half the DPS (if it existed). Of course, it's a ludicrous statement because everyone else would use the alternatives and you're just being less effective with no measurable affect on the game's average TTK, so the game doesn't receive any benefits that a longer TTK may bring. The only way to resolve which is best for gameplay is to have a discussion on the direction of the game and throw this false choice out the window (I know you didn't present that argument, Mustarde).

The alternative to redeploy, using transports to ferry troops as a role / play style, has been all but stripped from the game. It's useless because only a spawn needs to be where you want to go and to spend time using transports is to deceive yourself that it's as effective as redeploy. The closest we get is the Galaxy drop, but let's be clear, that's only useful because it puts you in exactly the spot you want, usually on top of a building or hill. If there were a spawn there, maybe a landed Galaxy AMS from Beta, you would simply redeploy. When bases need defending, even if they're on the other side of the map, you redeploy. When you finish capturing a base and AMSs are set up at the next one, you redeploy. An entire army enters a loading screen and jumps from fight to fight as if we were playing a round based shooter. They don't see or fight over what's in between.


Why is redeploy so powerful? Let's go back to the scenario of reinforcing a front / base that's under attack.

While the last minute saves would still happen with an organized Galaxy drop, I think people have gotten far too used to them with redeploy (indeed, when they're so common it begins to devalue the feeling of achievement). If you're watching the map closely, couldn't you see the base start falling at 4 minutes and the enemy's higher population? Heck, when the last base fell on the lattice you could infer that that front may need help.

But the redeploy system is so powerful it allows you to simply not care until the timer is near the end. If you choose to wait until the last moment then it should be a risk. Redeploying is instant, free and 100% safe. If redeploying to defend a base, there's nothing that can stop it. This means that going from the decision to reinforce a base (strategy) and actually defending that base (tactics) there is NO transition.

Thus, it's here we touch on strategy. The redeploy meta may involve a little strategy of picking bases and timing, sure, but there aren't different ways in which you can spawn into a spawn room, or ways in which the enemy can plan to counter you. HOW BORING! Destroying a generator, for those bases that have it, is almost exactly the same "stand around this point until the timer ends" gameplay that they get from the control point - so a repeat of tactics. Such limited strategy of yelling "redeploy to X" over and over is not particularly engaging.


Okay, so redeploy isn't 100% strategically deficient but what does it miss out on? What are we giving up by accepting the game as it is?

Good strategic gameplay has counter strategies. If one team decides to reinforce a base and must take vulnerable transports to do it, then the other team can decide to intercept them. This creates dynamic, meaningful objectives for vehicles to protect or destroy. Right now, all attacking vehicles can do is sit there shelling the spawn room - one of the most highly complained about aspects of gameplay. More objectives also means spreading out the population, which would alleviate the issues with packing multiple platoons into small bases and the resulting grind fest.

Interestingly, this is effectively the same reasoning behind why the Resource Revamp will add more strategy and improve overall gameplay. Ferrying resources should be a risk-reward business. Yet troops, which are even more important to the fight, should be able to move around freely? Even those in organized squads and platoons that are plenty capable of pulling transports and escorts (something we saw a lot more of in early PS2).


As for keeping lattice lanes active, I'd like to quote Malorn about how redeploy impacts battle flow:

Source.

"The truth is, the current meta of redeployment keeps lattice lanes active, and gives us all more opportunity to shoot at bad guys.".

Quite the contrary, as long as you can near-instantaneously get to a base no matter how far away it is, you have zero incentive to stay on your current lattice lane. Factions have no need to spread forces out and keep lanes active, defending or attacking in succession, instead they combine forces of multiple fronts (meaning there's less to shoot somewhere else), redeploy to whichever base has the lowest timer, overwhelm attackers and destroy all spawns so they can immediately leave, safe in the knowledge that the base is ticking in their favor again.

It is essentially a time game. You cannot speed up the capture of bases and cannot prevent the enemy from redeploying (unless there's an SCU, which is also timer based and isn't present in every base). Any time a faction deliberately chooses to allow you to get part way through a cap, they do so because it is a waste of time on your end. Only the final second technically matters.

Preparing for an attack, moving to an underpopulated base, setting up on the point, a brief fight in which your spawns are taken out, falling back to defend at the next base on the lattice but the enemy don't show... there's LESS time spent shooting enemies than if the enemy had fought you every step of the way to, and inside, the base. Unless, of course, you play the same way and abandon lattice lanes at the drop of a hat.

Did SOE revert the recent change where Reinforcements Needed applied to all Sundies, including offensive ones?

Don't you think it's a little lop sided that, as an attacker, you spend time planning and enacting a set of Galaxy drops and surround the base entirely with armor... but the enemy just magically appear out of thin air in an instant, no matter what you do or how well you plan? Why aren't they playing by the same rules?

If you block off all approaches don't you think it makes intuitive sense that the enemy should have to make it through your blockade? If you pick a base that the enemy leave lightly defended (good strategy), shouldn't they face a cost for not spreading their forces out? In other words, the time, resources and risk taken to reach the base.

It's one thing to give defenders who are already a part of the fight a hard spawn with the intent of giving them a defender's advantage. It's another to treat reinforcements the same as people who have been defending from the start, rather than expecting them to go to the same, minimal, lengths that attackers did in getting to the base.

Outfits used to redeploy to the Warpgate and load up in Galaxies all the time, so let's dispel the myth that players won't ever bother with it. The reason it fell out of favor is because it's unnecessary. I mean, you can hardly say that because people aren't doing it now, when they have no incentive to do so, that is proof they won't be willing once it becomes rewarding -again-.


You bring up a good point about player behavior, still, I think it's a misplaced concern. During territory alerts, in hours that factions are serious about winning, do you think they'd let the enemy ghost cap an entire lattice lane simply because they can't be bothered to fly for a minute by Galaxy?

If players don't care that a whole bunch of territory is falling, it's because the game hasn't given them enough reason to care. This has been a long standing issue but recently, with continent locking and increased bonus' - eventually intercontinental lattice - people are beginning to care at hours outside of alerts also. There's certainly a lot of progress to be made, like better facility benefits, but that's another topic.


This also falls into the trap that players expect to be able to fight on every front, with so little delay that they can almost be present at every fight, especially any that start going south. This is a way of thinking that has been propagated by the redeploy system and actually is totally against the lattice system.

As Malorn pointed out, the intuitive thing to do when you capture / lose a base is to move on to / fall back to the next one on the line. This means that factions do their best to populate every lattice, consistently.

One of the main reasons we see so many dead lanes that turn into ghost caps is the fault of the redeploy system in the first place! When the previous fight there ended it was faster, and more important, to be on a different front rather than continue to exploit the advantage on the current one / set up a defense for the enemies push. Let me just repeat that again because we're so used to it that it goes completely under our radar now: teleporting to the other side of the map is faster, and many times more desirable, than setting up a defense or moving 500m(?) to the next base and trying to progress closer to a facility, or the enemy Warpgate.

If you do not leave the front, you will not be forced to come back. You created that hole, that underpopulation, in the first place. It leads to this mind boggling circular logic where people claim we need the redeploy system to reinforce underpopulated fronts that are only ever left because redeploy is so damn easily spammed.


All things being well you shouldn't need to redeploy to new fronts at all because there will already be forces defending it. Even if they start to lose that base the next one might be more defensible so you're still not needed. So what if you lose a single base? As long as it's not a facility and you're not worried about the enemy making significant progress it doesn't matter much.

When players CAN get to any base at any time they behave as though they all really matter because it's a failure to reach your potential if you don't stop them and costs you strategically if the enemy protects every base. When players CAN'T reasonably be expected to fight at every base then your measure of success changes and, since you're not hopping around trying to prevent every cap, you won't be expected to drive across half the map - only to the next adjacent base.

Instead of thinking about swapping fronts CONSTANTLY, preventing any progress, stagnating the battle front, then occasionally snatching a base when there's a good moment; players should be thinking about pushing and defending their lanes CONSTANTLY, then occasionally swapping because the situation somewhere else is so dire that they won't recover, or it's too important.

Yes, sometimes the enemy will catch you out by throwing more forces at a base than you have defending. Well done them. Instead of destroying the strategy with a few clicks and a mass redeploy, it should require a minimum of time and effort to react to. Don't forget, the enemy have left a hole somewhere that might be exploited and, should this push fail, they are stuck on the new front as much as you are (not 100%, but likely will stay).

When neither side can hop around constantly, the occasional times they do so become calculated risks. Placing more importance on those strategic decisions.


It took many months for people to have the redeploy system engrained in them. It may take months to readjust but it's worth it!

I agree on 55% instead of 50%. When players say they want an even fight, it doesn't have to be exactly 50%, it can be close enough. If we'd consider it a close, fun fight at 55% attackers, 45% defenders, then I see no point in denying a small group of defenders trying to redeploy there from reversing those numbers.

SOE definitely need to tie all spawn options, beacon, Sunderer, Galaxy, squad spawn etc. to the same constraints as the base. Otherwise, organized squads/platoons just side step them and it's meaningless. If you're outside the territory no options should show unless you're under 55% population. Once inside they all show as usual. If a SL wants everyone at a base and they can't all redeploy, instead of cheesing it by making sure the SL goes first, just grab a Galaxy.

I don't agree with removing it from <24 fights though. It's already difficult enough for small forces to find a fair, small scale engagement. We don't need to send the message that you're always worse off if you don't bring more than 2 squads. It would create the oddity that at 25 players the enemy could only reinforce with up to 31, but at anything less than that the enemy could bring much more.

Wouldn't you also be surprised when you see / don't see the enemy arriving via Galaxy or Sunderers? And if they let you take the base does that mean it was a ghost cap


If SOE attempt to curtail redeploy primarily through charging resources it'll be such a powerful tool that players will simply save up resources and suffer pulling less vehicles, MAXes and grenades - and then complain about costs. As I said, I'd prefer a redeploy queue which directly addresses the problem of moving large numbers, instantly and safely, to any base.

However, it would be nice to see a small resource cost imposed, not enough to be the main limit, but simply to treat resource availability a little more equally. If you move from one base to another with transport/s, someone/s will arrive with less resources available. If you redeploy hop as a solo player, it's already faster and safer so paying the cost of say, a flash, is not much to ask (It should scale based on lattice links).


If I want to play an arena shooter I'll go play CoD Why is it so bad to have a reason for making such large maps? People completely exaggerate the time involved in getting from base to base. It's like a minute from a Galaxy at the WG to any front, and maybe 90 seconds flying the entire diagonal of the map. Heck, you can sprint from many adjacent bases in under a minute, if you so desired.

Teleporting to each base discourages the epic fights in between them - a good combined arms battle over a field is what many consider the most fun moments of PS. Why is it a bad thing to expect people to move and "fight for every inch" (higby/tagline quote I think)? Infantry get their moment indoors but vehicles need a reason to exist other than shelling the spawn room.


It's said many times, but PS2 has so much potential that it's not living up to and it shouldn't try to be like other shooters. SOE are in it for the long haul, so they need deep gameplay. So many players have already left and will only return if PS2 sorts itself out.


*Phew*, well that felt like a marathon post.

@MrJengles - I just want to let you know I read your entire post. There's a lot in there to respond to, and I may not get to do it. But it was well thought out and I appreciated the read and just wanted to let you know. And to others visiting the thread, it's worth a read as well - despite the length.

I leave my response here.

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/possible-solutions-for-infantryside-redeployside-and-meta-strategy-tactics-warning-long-post.194499/