[Suggestion] remove redeploy

I cant believe this is even a discussion in a game of this size. Obvious troll is obviously trolling.
If you want a nice 5v5 where you dont have to map you can cod.
Maybe you've heard of it? Its like planetside for dummies.
As for myself.,
I'm going to spawn into that 5v5, knock you guys off the map (no offense) long enough for me to REDEPLOY into that 96+ fight and hunt down the best laid enemy sunderers i can find before i REDEPLOY again to come back and lolpop whatever else has peaked my interest. then i dunno maybe cookies.
Spawns are fine.

Really you just need to learn to map. You can find whatever fight you want if you know how to look for it.

yaaaas

Well, PS2 is technically in a unique position to group disparate groups, because they are they are the only FPSMMO on the market (hence "unique") and they are dumping everyone together (hence "position"). But I don't think they are in any way in a good position to make everyone happy: they are still the same Designers that have been making people unhappy, and they are still pushing the agendas/decisions which don't fit with what the playerbase wants (and even some of what the playerbase loudly says they *don't* want).

Arguably, the other two groups that PS2 is forcing together are:
1) the headshot loving, K-Style GunZ gameplay liking, slow ttk fan, group that wants to be able to soak up being shot in the back and then turn and mow down the attacker
2) the group that wants to be able to shoot someone at close range in the back and that person dies

I am with group #2. Putting these 2 groups together is also a mess, but to be fair, PS2 Devs have been making the game progressively for group 1 for a long time now.

I still am not clear on who Contructed Bases are being Designed for. In theory they are very neat, but as they have been implemented they are largely unplayable for the average player. At best they are a nice safe Oasis for Air to land and evade enemy Air.

+1 point for adding Constructive Bases into an FPS MMO. It's a first.
-1 point for adding Contructive Bases that don't really fit gameplay-wise with the game they were added into.

You are talking about instanced Death Matches. Was that what Battle Islands are as well?

I fully support this suggestion of yours. It makes use of an existing license/assets/code to provide a fun experience for players. It subscribes to the notion of trying out new stuff for players in order to find and deliver what they enjoy and to get more people interested and playing.

I expect some people will complain that this would only remove current players from the Continents and thereby impact their fun in farming those players. Which I feel is just a bad reason to not continue to seek out new ways to grow the PS2 license and playerbase. Make PS2 better and people will come, just trying to trap players in a stunted and declining game is just courting oblivion.

That's probably the biggest problem. Infantry fights are balanced where people are bullet sponges, and now infantry players expect that, but throw vehicles in there and it just doesn't work. The long ttk, HA shields, and instant respawns are the reason I play Squad and Arma for infantry combat, they just do it better.

It was a very cool attempt, and it brought back a lot of players. I agree that bases need to be integrated much better with the rest of the game. But, it entertains an entirely different type of player, which is an incredible achievement in a fps. I think resource gathering, mobile bases, and supply chains could be introduced in a similar way. But yeah, I don't trust Daybreak to be clever enough to pull these things off, especially with the last few patches.

This game would do well with a small outlet for more structured competition. I do agree with the naysayers that we shouldn't split up our limited playerbase though. But we already have that system for hitting "y" or "n" for invitations and the warpgate shield mechanic to keep out certain players so it shouldn't be that much of a reach to set up a que where players can hit "y" or "n" when it's their time to go to their mini-game. If they just pulled an ESF or they're in a clutch battle they can hit "n" and go back in the que for the next round. The beauty of this is that it doesn't segregate the population. But, as others mentioned in my post, the trick is integrating their achievements in to the main fight, not blocking the flow of battle with their mini-game, and not causing the mini-game to overly influence continent locks the way hives can. But I think those kinks can all be ironed out. I primarily play vehicles, but when I see a heavily skewed que I play another game, whether my faction has the advantage or not. The best gameplay I've seen has been when its an even split among the factions, this would allow that no matter when you log on.

No offense but I've never seen five TE attack a base. That's not even a full squad. Zergdrops and spawncamps are like TE's trademark. It kinda sounds like you just want uncontested zergs or easy caps.

Regardless of your personal feelings about base capping, redeploy keeps the game moving. Nobody wants to be forced to kill themselves and respawn at the warpgate, waste nanites on an ESF just to get somewhere or run across half the map just to get to a fight...and take so long that the fight is already over and then have to do it all over again.

On a sidenote, one of the major reasons your outfit leader left the game was because he complained about the cash shop and implants being Pay2Win. So...yeah...did you notice the latest update? Just gonna let the irony of that sink in for a moment...

PS2 used to have instanced, competitive outfit vs. outfit fights that would take place in smaller maps. They had these weekly community clash events, tournaments and more. At one point they were going to partner with MLG and make it this big thing. That all kind of went out the window.

I can see why, nothing about this game screams competitive. Plus I'm not really interested in events and competitions here and there, I just want a good game I can come home and play at the end of the day with a couple beers, stats and competitions couldn't mean less to me.

I am in agreement on redeploy costing nanites. i believe it would help a little.

And how many nanites should it cost to get out of a spawn camp?
How many nanites will it cost to deploy on your squad lead?
How many nanites will it take to re-deploy to the previous base, to do that counter attack?
How many nanites will be left to use?

Like what exactly would it help?
Help ensure aircraft drops, and attackers don't have to worry about Defenders arriving?

redeploying to warpgate should always cost 0 that solves ur spawn camp problem.
honestly i would think on average a cost of 50 nanites for redeploying would be fine with increasing increments maybe after 5 hops?
imho deploying to a base behind should be free on death from enemy. not suicide.. that solves the counterattack. (that could even slow down spawn camps so ppl cant redeploy for free maybe but probably dreaming
Squad lead not sure how to work that one honestly free to spawn on beacon but make beacon cost nanites to deploy?


i think it would help in multiple ways but like i said only a little
it would help ppl look after sundy's a little better (i hope).
it would not stop redeployside completely for sure but it would slow it down a little and maybe thats all it needs.
it would help put a little more focus on transport in general but again only a little.

im just fed up with all the redeploying constantly myself.
thats all ill say on it i just like the idea of a little more focus on transport.

alos on a lore note im guessing when ppl redeploy you are making clones of urself how are they made?.

Ah yes, when spawn camped, travel the furthest possible position to then travel that same distance again.

But actually, 50 nanites, and 5 hops, That actually isn't all that bad. Interesting spin of it.

Beacons however take a half hour to use again (?), and are literal glowing beacons for the enemy to target.
I myself use them as bait when available.

How would they look after sundies more? Like if they didn't now, how would they then?
In all likely hood, they didn't drive one, they came by air. In a drop. Or a Zerg, where losing one means ****e anyway.
As well, enemies would be gunning for the Sundy harder, and makes it more practical to outpop the enemy hard.
Or use ******** amounts of aircraft.


What battles are you fighting that redeploy is the grandest devil?
It's a tactical element to consider; Will the enemy side bring in more forces?
If so, will they be via the present spawns, will they drive more in, or will they come via air?
That's the literal thought process required as defenders, and presently attackers.
Without re-deploy, all an attacker has to care about is an Airdrop, which just need ESFs, or more people.. and you win without much of a fight.

But at least, you aren't hammering down redeploy with debuffing them to hell, or making it impossible to launch a counter attack.
Which is nice.