Redeployside: this must stop NOW.

Yeah. All the need to do is make it so you cant redeploy if enemies are in the area you are in. Simple.

Seems like a lot of people are forgetting how bad it was before we were allowed to redeploy to bases under attack with less then 50% friendly pop. Come to terms with defensive redeploys. They're here to stay, and for good reason.

A while ago it wasnt exactly a problem when a player had the option to deploy to ANY friendly base on the map. I don't know why they got rid of this option. They could just remove it all together and make squad deploy with no timer.

Soon enough it won't be free. The devs are looking at charging soldiers nanites to redeploy long ranges. This will fix the problem I feel as it will stop people repeatedly redeploying until they reach the fight they want.

Well said OP. I agree.

Make it so redeploy and instant action have hour cool downs. If redeploy is used before that timer is up it can only take you to your warp gate. Instant Action simply wouldn't be usable before the timer is up.

My opinion on redeploy:

Redeploying was always there (as far I remember). It was even nerfed a little bit some time ago so you could only spawn to the next 1-2 bases in your lane (at least when your squad leader wasn´t in another base).
The point is: Why is it a problem now? I see a lot of discussion on why redeploying should be removed or get

Redeploying is not the cause. It is an effect!

Nobody fights in a specific area because he wants to conquer this area. People choose a base/area because there is a "good fight". And good fight means: no 96+vs96+, population balanced, etc.But everyone does it. I´ve played all 3 factions on miller (in outfits) lately and everyone does the same thing. Deploying to a good fight. If friend or foe does the same and overpops, you redeploy to another "good fight". People even TK you because you destroyed an enemy sunderer (ruins a good fight).
Playing Planetside 2 at the moment remembers me at old Quake 3 times where you have your server list and just choose a good match. When you don´t like it, you leave and look for another one. Same with every other FPS.

I stopped playing games completely a few years ago because nearly all games bored me to hell. I like playing FPS games online, but everything seems the same boring ****. Small map, restricted and balanced number of people, timelimit/pointlimit, no persistance.When I heard about Planetside 2 I started playing it and since then I´m playing every day (not daily PS2 anymore).

TL;DR
- Removing or stronly restricting redeploy mechanics will not solve "the problem".
- no reason for capturing a base -> people choose easy/good fights.
- Planetside 2 is not a persistant game anymore. It´s just like a TDM game with a lot of maps where you can switch servers quick.

SOE should focus more on resource revamp and new alerts instead of design and new weapons/vehicles events in my opinion.
I know they have a lot of work with the PS4 version and they suffer from personell these days. But in my point of view the missing "meta game" as some would call it, is the cause of the problem.

Cloning Nanite Vats
- Players can redeploy almost like now to defend a base as long as at least 50% of the local population are actually defenders(So initially, Defenders would have to travel there) and as long as that base is connected to the lattice(Indirectly to the WG too, not just 1 other cut off hex). However, the actual links should be exposed at various areas and be prone to damage. If it is damaged enough(Engies can repair those however) and the hex is separated from the WG the system below kicks in;
- Each Nanite Vat allows X players to spawn at that base at any point(Larger bases should have more Vats). As an example if there is 1 Vat, then 10 soldiers can spawn. Priority based on various factors which can be easily decided by SOE.
- As Attackers you have to destroy them or hack them, reducing the number of immediate reinforcements the Defenders can push out of their Spawn Room. Attacking a base with at least 50% population should grant more XP as long as that population is still there.
- As Defenders you have to protect and repair them or your numbers will decrease. For variety's sake in some bases the Vats could be behind shields, either prone to hacking or tied to a Generator or prone to damage.
- If they are broken, Defenders may consume Nanites to spawn.
- If they are hacked, local(Hex) mobile spawn points can replenish their own Nanite stock just by being in the same hex.

Mobile Spawn Points
- Each can support a limited amount of soldiers spawning, much like the Vats. This will replace current AMS and make having more AMS significant again. Want 100 soldiers? Bring 10 of those Sundies and protect all because otherwise you're losing reinforcements by the 10s.
- Mobile Spawn Points have a limited amount of Nanites and must go to Nanite Dispensers(Just like Ammo Towers) after X amount of soldiers spawn, or each soldier will consume their own Nanites per spawn. Nanite Dispensers and Ammo Towers(And landing pad Nanite stock) should be prone to hacking, tied to a new kind of Terminal.
Lattice

Lattice Connections should directly affect these systems, no connection means no Nanite stock, a hex may run dry. A vehicle such as an ANT should be able to provide Nanites if it refills local Dispensers by being near, even if the connection is severed. Attackers should intercept those to keep Defenders' capabilities low.

Resources

The above suggestions' effects will be more severe under a stricter resource system, for instance one with unified Nanite pools for a hex or a Faction, basically what SOE plans on doing. Adding more and distinct base benefits(And having bases which are important in other ways but do not provide Nanites/Resources) and improving base design to accommodate for all these changes(Increase size ETC) will further enhance those effects. I would go as far as splitting Capture Points, so for instance instead of A, B, and so on, we have A1 2 and 3, B1 2 and 3 and so on. Diverse designs such as progressive capturing of these leading to the capture of A, or having to have people on all sub points to begin capture should help spread players more evenly among the now larger bases.

Existing Systems

No need to alter these except they shouldn't be time based; Skipping the whole Cloning Vats thing and disabling the Spawn Room by blowing up the local SCU would be possible but it would require hacking the SCU room's shields for example. In other cases just to add variety, causing enough damage to the shields should temporarily disable them(Using a Repair Tool on the generator itself should restore those shields faster).

Can someone else improve on these thoughts because I'm having the worst hang over ever?... Or yeah, opt to do what ForumSide does best, bash them relentlessly after reading a couple of things they may not agree with. Your choice. I'm just going to leave it here.

Nerfed? The only nerf to redeploy I can remember is when devs prevented drop pods to fall on squad leader even if he was dead.
Then it has been buffed several times: you can now always deploy to the base of you leader, suderers, galaxies, Valkyries, closest territories and even the far ones if they are under attack (and THIS is the bugged functionality devs should completely scrap).

One platoon could warp gate and take an entire continent. Keep one platoon or squad mate in any hex and then take it before the enemy show up. There could potentially be no place to spawn besides warpgates and I rather play a new game than have to respawn at the warpgate each time I die. I could see essentially one good outfit taking out every hex in record times with such a system.

So your complaint is that people can leave a fight they don't want to be in, and they can join a fight they do want to be in?

What's your solution to that? You demand that it be changed, but you neglect to offer any alternatives.

Why is it ok if you get out-popped via Galaxy drop? If the result is the same, why does it matter how they got there?

Redeploy should cost both time and resources based upon distance, such that it's more efficient to travel longer distances by vehicle than it is to redeploy. There being some 'break even' distance where its about the same either way.

Something like this:

Deploying to the WG is always free and instant.
Deploying to your last spawn point is also free, and takes the current 10s.
Deploying to any spawn point in your current hex is free, and takes standard 15s.
Deploying to an adjacent base, connected via lattice line, costs a small amount of nanites (say 50) and takes 15s.
Deploying to any other base costs an increasing number of nanites based on the lattice line distance (perhaps 50 for the first step, then +25 for each base in between). The time increases by 2s for every step you have to take after the first.
You cannot redeploy into bases that are cut off from the warpgate, unless you are already inside the hex.
Deploying into a squad Sunderer, Galaxy or Valkyrie (or on a beacon) has no cost and takes the same time regardless of the distance.

Probably need to fudge the numbers a bit to make the costs even out somewhere in the middle.

I like the nanite charge for redeploy/respawn.

Making it harder and more costly to travel to battles will only hurt the game. It's difficult enough to find a good fight as it is.

I suppose you could argue that if everyone on all factions can't redeploy as easily then the fights have to stay along the lattice lanes because there's no where else to go without that magical redeploy button. But if one side keeps getting stomped, why would they want to keep fighting along that lane? Most players would probably just log off. Either that, or the losing side builds up a zerg of their own and it becomes a zerg-on-zerg slug fest with no strategy and only number superiority matters, as it does now.

If redeploy is nerfed, the lattice system needs to be reworked. Before the lattice, we used to be able to counter zergs by taking adjacent hexes and making them split their forces. Or at the very least we could cap around the zerg to isolate them. With the current lattice, it just becomes a zergfest because the only way to take a lattice lane choke point is with numbers, not strategy.

I agree with people who say nerfing redeploy treats the symptoms, not the cause. I say keep the same redeploy mechanic, but rework the lattice to make strategy more important than population size. Then zergs won't be the be-all-end-all of the game and redeploy would serve a strategic purpose that enhances the gameplay rather than detracts from it.

No.
People should be allowed to leave a fight at any time. And should be allowed to get in combat quickly. But that's what reploy to warpgate and instant action are for. What I complain about is that players are allowed to redeploy to very distant bases and this is not good because:
1) In February devs implemented a respawn limit based on territory population but this is not working. Once population is more or less 50% players should not be allowed to join a battle via redeploy, but this is not working as intended and I'm convinced this is a freaking bug. A full platoon can actually spawn to a base that is 3kms away even if their faction already has 60% or more of population in that territory. This means that population can take off in 10 seconds without the defenders even notice anything.
2) It makes transport vehicles less useful because you can be much faster and no cost and no risk.

Because a Galaxy means taking a risk: it can be spotted and stopped somehow. ESF can patrol the sky and take it down. A Galaxy can be countered, and so do Sunderers and Valkyries. Moving a full platoon with transport vehicles require real skill, some time and coordination: it's something that only the good outfits can do effectively. And it's something you can not do 30 seconds before the base is capped.
Redeploy only requires your mates to press Cancel and wait 10 seconds, and if you have numbers there is nothing defenders can do to stop you. Redeployers can travel from a side to the other of the map in 10 seconds changing lane, they can overpop the enemy, organize a huge max crash right before the base is flipped and then disappear in 1 minute.
This is killing the game, in particular during alerts: redeploy as it is now gives a huge advantage and has no justification and cannot be countered.

Of course you could ask your faciton mates to redeploy as well, but this would bring us back to the same old problem we had with the hex map: people feeling forced to leave good fights because they have to teleport somewhere else. Is this really what we want?

Your words are very telling. You say "no", but then you caveat your statement with some very particularly parsed words:

You say "...leave a fight..." but "...get in combat...". "Get in combat" in not the same as "go to a fight". This difference is reinforced by what you say next. You say "redeploy to warpgate" and "Instant Action". Well going to the warpgate is specifically is leaving ALL fights and retreating to your safety zone, and Instant Action is a dice roll where the dice are loaded to drop a player into a generally unwinnable battle in a way that almost guarantees their immediate extermination. I don't think these subtleties were lost on you. I think you knew exactly what you were saying.

In your original post, you complained that the VS didn't fight when they were overwhelmed; that they "just retired" in your words. But that didn't bother you so much that you would leave that base and go search out a more challenging conflict in your galaxies, did it? You were content to sit on a 93% vs 7% advantage and soak up the guaranteed XP, weren't you? You seem all too willing to accept the enemy being overwhelmed and retreating. I wonder, what was the pop difference when you made your arrival. Did you seek out a base that had at least three squads sitting in it, or did you hit an under-manned base with 33 attackers and give them no chance to defend. I couldn't help noticing that there was no account of a "pitched battle" when you secured the points.

But then, the vast majority of your original post revolved around them doing the same thing to you. They brought a superior force and ran you out just as you did to the defenders. While you put a lot of weight on the "mode of transportation", I do not. In fact, I will not mince words: I think a benefit of owning a base should be instant access to that territory at any time. ANY base, at ANY time. It should always be incumbent on the attackers to perform the logistics of attacking a territory that does not belong to them. Because, frankly, you have people like yourself on one end of the spectrum, and on the other end of the spectrum you have people complain that bases are not defensible enough and that territory changes hands too easily. The argument goes, and I'm sure anyone reading this has heard it a million times, "What's the point of fighting over these bases if they are just going to get taken back in the next hour?" That is a valid argument. Unfortunately, it's often directed at the base designs themselves, when it should be a function of defense logistics, as we are discussing here.

There is one overriding fact that cannot be forgotten: Guard Duty Sucks. Nobody wants to sit on an empty base and wait for the enemy to attack. That very principle is why the Hex System failed. How do you solve that problem? By allowing defenders to move freely between their owned bases to fend off attacks wherever the enemy tries to attack. This goes back to Game Design 101: Creating Conflict. Capping empty bases is bad. Sitting on defense in empty bases is bad. Players fighting each other over territory is the goal.

The real skill, time, and coordination should be incumbent on the attackers. Using an MMORPG analogy, attacking a base should be akin to a high level boss battle. Not something that can be achieved without the real skill, time, and coordination of a "Good Outfit". One thing you you leave out in manpower. Like it or not, this game will ALWAYS be a game of numbers. And if all your outfit can muster is 36 players, well then you're better suited for Farmer League where you can strut your team coordination and individual skills. Because out there on the continents of the Live servers, it comes down to how many men you can throw at the problem. And it will ALWAYS be that way. There's no "fixing" that. And frankly, no one would like this game if that were "fixed" because it would mean severely limiting freedom of movement. You already have people quitting the game over the fact that they can't play on Indar 24/7. Now you're going to say "you can't go to that hex because it's a 24v24 and you're not invited" or "Oh, you can go there, but when you die you're going to be on a 2 minute respawn timer because you're over popped." That's REALLy what you are driving at here, and you're not looking beyond the nose on your face, down the road, at the unintended consequences of the things of which you're asking. Redeployside CAN be countered by having more players they can bring to the fight.

"Is this really what we want?"
It's just like the old saying about Democracy: "It's not a great system, but it's the best so far." I haven't seen any viable alternatives yet. I can tell you this: making people sit in galaxies, waiting in the warpgate, to see where the enemy is going to strike next sure ain't it. That may be YOUR idea of fun, but I highly doubt it's the game most Planetside players want to play.

When we arrived population was slightly more than 50% for us: we were just 24 players, VS could defend if they just wanted. Our idea was to start a new front and force VS to leave Saerro. It was a diversion, because we were actually unable to capture the other bases.

What we have seen is that VS mass redeploy completely annihilated out attempt to start a new battle, for the simple reason that redeploying forces cannot be stopped in any way. It doesn't matter if you hack their terminals, disable their turrets, spawn Sunderers, guard all the points and deploy turrets and landmines. It does not matter if you have a strategy to establish a defensive perimeter: once you have a 75% of enemies in the spawn room the battle is already lost. And this happens in... 10 seconds?
Take the defensive turrets. Why should Infiltrators care to hack anti aircraft turrets, when the enemy will just start the battle from the spawn room? They won't arrive in a Galaxy for sure, because they can steamroll the enemy faster and easier with redeploy. So why waste time and nanites?
And this is all because the respawn changes they implemented in February are bugged, they do not work like they've been described.

But this happens at every freaking alert. When the objective is taking as much territory as possible redeploy gives players all the advantages at no cost.

Just disable instant action during alerts on the continent its being played on. Problem solved.

Gals can be shot down.

The spawn system was tweaked to make sure that players couldn't deploy at a base if their faction already had equal population with the enemy, though this hardly works 100% of the time.

Am I correct in assuming you are complaining about the fact this system is faulty? If so, you make a good point and should probably edit your original post to reflect this stance.

If the spawn cap system worked 100% of the time it would solve the issue you are talking about, the point to be made here should be that this system needs to be made more effective.

And a point for the sake of semantics; the act of hitting the redeploy button isn't the problem, the issue as you describe it is in the spawn system, redeploying is just a death timer. Whether they redeployed, got killed or threw a nade at their feet is irrelevant, the result is the same.