[Suggestion] Quick and dirty fix for current redeplysite meta ...

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Vango, Jan 13, 2015.

  1. Vango

    Everybody hates zergs just jumping around the map like grasshoppers in 30 secs (not as organised as small squads but still pretty fast),and TBH zergs are important to the game,they make new players feel like they are contributing to something bigger.
    We cannot remove the ability from zergs to redeply entirely,since that would effectively kill any sort of organisation driving those zergs.

    My suggestion: Biotubes and AMS Sundys should have a queue similar to vehicle terminals.Squad Deploy should not circumvent that queue.

    Spawning in squad sundy/gal/valk can remain unchanged to allow tactical insertions from more organised squads/platoons and further promote teamplay.
    Members could get priority queue for biotubes,to "increase the value of membership", but not AMS Sundys.

    What this change will do aside from limit zergs ability to hop around like crazy is:
    It will promote moving between bases instead of just redeploying on the 1st sundy to get there.
    It will promote placing more AMS Sundys in bases that are under attack to supliment the biotube.
    It will make AMS Sundys feel less disposable then they are now,and at the same time encourage players to defend them more actively.
    It will allow more consistent results when attacking a sundy (no 30 ppls hopping out of it in the last seconds)

    The queue length for every spawnpoint must be clearly visible on the map before you actually try to deploy there (to promote more diverse play and allow players to maybe choose to spawn a bitt further instead of waiting).


    It took me a while to figure something that would not be hard to implement (as in we already have implemented for other purposes) and would not destroy the game as it is entirely, but i admit my view is a bit scewed. I am looking forward to the holes in my suggestion you guys will no doubt find and the resolutions you will offer.
    • Up x 2
  2. DramaticExit

    Have you considered what this would do to spawn mechanics overall? This may result in people in large fights spending more time dead than they do actually playing the game.

    Not fun.
  3. Vango


    I have considered it and that was sort of the point - big fights need logistical support to be sustained,otherwise attrition should be allowed to kick in for both defenders and attackers.
    You still get the option to spawn in a sundy somewhere else around the base(or in the base if defending),and if none are currently available you get the option to go back the lattice link one base,pull a sundy from there and deploy it where it counts.(Or just set up defenses,pull a tank or get a flash and hop straight back to the fight.)
    If you don`t want to bother with that you also get to wait for the biotube queue or until someone actually gets an AMS nearby.
  4. DramaticExit

    In a sufficiently large brawl, the lifespan of a defender's sundy reduces to approximately eight nanoseconds, before the legion of Mana AV turrets and MBTs spamming the base, or the C4 literally raining from the sky blows it up...

    While the defender, with equal population to the atacker, may be keeping the attackers from the capture points with comparative ease, they are likely to have extreme difficulty keeping a vehicle alive.

    Spawning sundies is unlikely to work for a defending side, because the sundies will die. This will not only hurt the redeploy behaviour you dislike, but will make equal population defense impossible in fights above a certain size.

    You will prevent fights from occuring, making the game less fun.
  5. iller

    Perhaps.. but it's definitely a workable angle should Medics finally get their own deployable mobile AMS spawns.
    It would definitely incentivize pubs to squad up and have leaders keep teh spawn Bacon hot.

    It's an interesting idea either way... It doesn't solve the Deployside issue one bit since it's almost always well organized Zerg-Fits who are causing the most negative and uncounterable abuse of Deployside to win on sheer numbers alone which stomps all over a single tactical squad and casual platoons alike. But it's an interesting Anti-zerg mechanic for other reasons for sure
  6. DramaticExit

    I'm actually somewhat more concerned by a zerg which is on the offensive, rather than one that is redeploying around to stop attacks.
  7. iller

    ....Well that's weird since those zergs usually have 6-8 sundies deployed like honeycombs over the base.

    Why yesterday I followed that exact visual pattern in a tech plant to find the nearest one. It was on the map but I couldn't see it till I went up 3 flights of stairs. It was on the flippin Balcony. I don't even want to know how they're still getting them up there...
  8. Doc Jim

    Hmm... this is the first suggestion on how to curb "redeployside" that seems sensible to me. I like it.
  9. Vango

    I see your point,maybe the queue on AMS spawns should be longer if they are not deployed in a friendly hex (Doubled?),so the defenders can reinforce a bit easier?
    It should still require some effort to setup defenses IMO, maybe even let an outpost go down so you would have enough time to setup defenses in the next base.
    Would love to see some more input, as well as suggestions how to alleviate the issue.

    It is supposed to make it harder to organise,and give some reaction time to the defending faction,not **** zergs entirely to the point where every fight is sub 200 players.

    Higby PLS!

    Again I get that,the current situation with zergs on the offensive is good enough and would be perfect if we could just limit their ability to effortlessly move somewhere else,making any organized defense somewhat pointless,and my suggestion would without a doubt hurt the defenders ability to make a lightning fast defense vs such a push (like MAX crash for example),and that was not what i intended with it.Any suggestions are welcomed.


    And even that wouldn`t be enough to sustain a really big zerg without a large number of necromancers.Players in zergs die A LOT uno.

    Thank you I think my ****** just got 1 byte bigger ;)
  10. FateJH

    This is only going to cause excessively capricious gameplay based entirely on the ability to snowball the enemy. While it sounds easily implemented and intuitive, and rewarding of patience, it's just going to push frustration onto everyone because it forces them into queues and makes it annoyingly obvious they're stuck in a queue. It's going to impact S-AMS defense when it matters and actually make base assault and base defense quite impossible with our current base timers. A squad forming up at a spawn point (much of it, perhaps, from previous death) is going to take an exceptional amount of time just because it can only happen one person at a time and they will be interspersed with other unrelated spawns. In the same way, a group that has been pushed off an objective by an even larger group will now have been pushed off the point almost completely because, even before they all regroup at one of their S-AMSes (even if they all dispersed their spawning at separate ones), that group that resecured the point is going to have had time to move to block the obvious exits and some of the chokepoints to those obvious exits.

    Each incremental failure just makes it harder to push up or hold on, no matter how organized you are.

    Focusing on Medics as the glue that holds the current momentum of the group together under this proposed change only sounds reasonable if the ebb and flow of battle were built around longer pushes and longer holds and the back and forth of that. Capturing and keeping secure 2/3 tower points notwithstanding, this game mainly relies on quick and decisive pushes. Medics being the lifeblood of such a push or hold - relying on a broken implmentation of the respawn system whereas everyone else must await a constrained spawn - can only lead to situations of virtually insurmountable momentum being created.

    tl;dr - Fortified positions are just going to be harder to tackle in the amount of time players have to work with in this game if a perfect loss leads to a longer regroup time.
  11. Milspec

    Queues interrupt gameplay, so bad. I would suggest if you want to put in counters to redeployside, the spawns of a base would be a good place to start. I suggested elsewhere that control points are basically a hackish (no pun intended) way to establish control of a base, and putting in consoles to control the spawns / terms / etc. would be both more immersive and create more interesting base captures.

    For instance, a common way to prevent redeployside in PS1 (which did exist) was to blow up the spawn tubes before hacking the base. Since PS2's can't be blown up, one could alternatively hack or destroy spawn control consoles to prevent the tubes from working / / working at full capacity (they shut down every other minute or something) / redirect defenders to more remote spawn points .

    The attackers and defenders then have something to fight over which has an actual impact on the battle - they need to hold the spawn consoles in order to get more reinforcements through.
  12. CipherNine

    Other than fixing massive instant redeploy spawn queues would also slow down gameplay a bit and make it more tacticool.

    Currently base capping is about who can pile most bodies on control point. If death had more repercussions then people who take more thoughtful approach (higher KDR playstyle) would be rewarded. By playing smarter and having higher KDR you could eventually cap the base through attrition. This would help end stalemates which is another plus IMO.

    Of course not all players would like slower gamepace. That is why I'd suggest to implement this on only one of the continents. If we have 2-4 continents(depending on population) then there is no reason not to diversify the game a little bit by adding different rules on different continents.
  13. Vango

    As a squad you will have other options - squad beacon,squad sundy,squad gal or squad valk, making it that much easier to be effective vs a larger,less organised group that doesn`t have the ability to suddenly appear at the same place the same way you do.
    Obv if your squad is lacking in all of those departments you will have to go trough the queue,but at some point some bloke in the squad will eventually get pissed off by it and pull a sundy/valk/gal.
    I think you are overestimating the impact of the queue on organised play by a lot,the way I see it it would mostly impact poorly organised zergs and inefficient squads,without actually impacting the ability to shove 200+ people on a point in the span of 20 secs IF the proper preparation and coordination is done in advance.
    All in all - no "hit redeploy,we are going ******" decision on the fly for zerg leaders,1st some planing and logistical placement is requiered,including coordination between squads and outfits.

    The whole point is to make it harder to run a large force then it is to just lead a squad,and not by that much.Its only supposed to slow down zergwide redeploy by about a minute and limit hopping from base to base.


    Thats a good idea, but it only solves half the issue (does nothing for attackers),creates the same problems as the queue when it comes to defenses and requires the implementation of a new mechanic,but it would force more battles between bases so overall i think I like.

    I love this Idea!
  14. Rovertoo

    I think the hope for this is to encourage the devs to look at using spawn tubes as a base defender/attacker balance. Sundies and spawn tubes would become the limiting reactant so to speak, so large bases could have many tubes and smaller bases have fewer, and I think it would mesh even better with the Nanite-base system they plan to add. If I remember right actually, PS1 had both these systems as well. Sundies would work the same way but could have a larger amound of 'tubes' the spit out guys at once.
  15. FateJH

    If that's the case, then why don't we just work on what we think is broken or not working properly (redeployside?) rather than making changes that impact things other than what we're trying to target? "Why should the Vulcan-H be changed if only the Prowler's Vulcan is what is underperforming?," to use a contemporary example.

    The problem statement is "curb the effects of large scale redeployment across a great distance" but we've introduced unintentional consequences to local spawn situations for no reason in the process.

    It didn't work that way. The number of tubes only mattered how long it took to diasble all the spawns in a given location and added flavor to the physical locations where people appeared. Whether it had three (all bases), two (all towers), or an unspecified location (AMS; anywhere in the cloaked bubble was a valid point of spawn), multiple people could spawn simultaneously if their personal spawn timers allowed for it.
    Edit: if you're referring to spawns wasting LLU, we're looking at a really slow drip. Self-repairs were the most expensive causes of natural LLU drain, followed by Vehicle spawns. Moreover, this only affected major bases. Towers and AMSes had virtually unlimited nanites at their disposal.
  16. LtSqueak


    This would do nothing except annoy people to the point of leaving. You would immediately see instances of:
    "Outfit such-and-such just deployed 48 people in to defend a surrounded base while you were dying. You must now wait 5 minutes to deploy back into the base to help or go elsewhere since the base is surrounded so a sundy won't help in the slightest."

    Or we can get rid of deploying across the map and have a terminal in the warpgate that allows deployment to any owned base plus any deployed sundy, but can only warp one person every 30s (+/- balance). This means that lone wolves have a viable option to get anywhere on the battlefield with only slight pain, but outfits would have to use logistics or face it taking up to 24 minutes to move an entire platoon to one location.
  17. Hosp

    My 2 cents:

    If TTK were as long as it was in PS1, this would be a viable mechanic. But it is much to short to allow this to work without completely turning people off to the game.
  18. OldMaster80

    The problem is redeploy to a certain territory should be totally denied once population is 50% vs 50%. Giving zergs a mass teleporter was the stupidest idea the dev team has ever had since beta.
  19. Metalsheep

    I would suggest just going with PS1s spawn system. If you die repeatedly in a short period of time, you take longer to spawn. Iirc, your spawn timer could be near 30 seconds long if you were really bad.
    You normally took about 5 seconds to spawn at a base, 10 at tower, 15 at an AMS.

    Biolabs reduced your spawn timers continent wide, down to 1s or instant at main facilities, but not at AMSs. It also somewhat reduced the penalty for repeat deaths.

    Also: your redeploy could only take you back to Sanctaury or Warpgate in PS2s case. Whereas a Squad Leader could have his squad redeploy to their "Home" Base, that he could bind the squad to at the bases Main Terminal.
  20. CipherNine

    Thats why it should only be implemented on one of the continents.

    Some players would welcome slower paced game. That continent could be used for more 'competitive' play.