T.I. Alloys is not the problem

For those who don't know, T.I. Alloys is going to be getting a time out in the next patch. The base will be disabled, and players will simply have to go around it entirely.

The intention here is obviously the break up the mid map blenders which never end. While I agree with the intention, and have myself been frustrated with players who won't leave mid map on many occasions, I have to disagree with this solution. This won't fix the problem, players will find a new T.I. Alloys.

Here's an example from Amerish:


More to follow on this, but ops are on, so I'll be back later.

And now this:

It's players decisions that's the problem. They want an arena shooter not a tactical game.

It's the players decision, and they don't want the badly designed un-tactical gameplay that is the main game.

The current main game of capturing the continent is won by avoiding even fights, only attacking in situations where you have a blatant advantage on your enemy by zerging or using excessive force multipliers and making the fight against you so unfun that your opponents leave. In other words it's completely designed to destroy the MMOFPS design goal of the game. The tactics and decisions you have to make to accomplish this are one step higher than tic-tac-toe.

A player could ofcourse just try to play the game as intended, but any fight they join has a high risk of suddenly being zerged, which either undoes all their progress as they get their faces stomped in by something they could not prepare for or prevent or their allies zerg the enemy and all their hard work is trivialized.

So what does a player do instead? He goes to a place where he gets the MMOFPS gameplay he was promised without getting his work made obsolete instantly because someone somewhere decided to dump 4x the players of the opposition on a base.


Blaming players for something that isn't their fault is backwards. If you want people to exit the TI Alloys area you do one thing and one thing alone:

Make it fun.

I keep saying it and apparently I have to keep saying it. You don't get these players to join the main game by removing the things they enjoy, you get them into the main game by making it actually fun to play for them. We know that these people want to get out of TI Alloys, when the Escalation update dropped and promised tactical depth and rewards for more intricate gameplay everyone and their dog was involved in it, only to quickly realize that the Escalation update had just increased the rewards for crappy playstyles so they went back to their Biolabs and TI Alloy bases.
The Escalation update proves that players want to get out of there if you give them what they want. More teamplay and that large-scale continent capture combat is definitely what they want, the only thing the developers have to do is change the way you capture bases so that players are encouraged to build fun, fair fights rather than trying to demolish the fun out of your opponent.


Just stop blaming the players for the simple decision not to engage in gameplay where:

1. They don't get to play the MMOFPS to it's full extent,
2. They can get their enjoyment destroyed by something you cannot plan for or prevent unless you out-zerg them first.

WTF man! I know fights seem to be non-stop there but I actually enjoy that base. Seriously, removing a base people like to fight at all the time?!? Are they intentionally trying to ruin the game?

So they will make a change like this but not touch the handful of broken things in the game???

Maybe we need to drum up some silly social media campaign against changes such as this and then they will pay some attention. Because you know, only social media outrage is real. (sarcasm).

lmao what

tell me you're joking. How does this even work? Nah, this one's taking it too far

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps...update-jan-28-2021-outfit-wars-revamp.256144/

Developers decision, because it basically IS an arena shooter.

The low ranges, slow bullet velocities and the damage values of most guns in combination with the recoil system are found in games like Unreal Tournament, Quake or Halo. You can see especially in a 1vs1 fight in Planetside that the gunplay favors duels. Shoot somebody in the back and they can get easily into cover or return fire, again promoting duels in arena shooter games. It's also not very feasible to engage another enemy than the one you already shot at.

In contrast you have the objective style, movement and playernumbers of "tactical" shooters like Battlefield paired with these gunmechanics

I would actually say it's the opposite: Battlefield is the arena style shooter and PS2 the more teamplay oriented one (however hamstringed its developers have designed it).

Shooters like battlefield allow you to kill quickly, this means a single player coming in from the right angle can easily kill half a dozen players with the right gun before he can be put down, simply because there's not much time required per kill. Longer TTK's mean that there's more time needed to down a single person and you need more tactics to breach an area defended by multiple players as you can't get lucky and murder half of them on your own. 90% of PS2 isn't about 1v1, it's about a bunch of people in one area fighting another bunch of people trying to control or pass through that area.

This is ofcourse modified by how easy it is to actually hit the target. If it's very hard to hit your enemy, a skillful player has more chance to win against lower skilled players. If it's very easy to hit your enemy then it becomes more of a DPS race who can aim the most guns with the highest DPS at their opponents. The middle-ground is what I think PS2 should be looking for: Hard enough that skilled players can change a bad situation, easy enough that unskilled players aren't helplessly throwing magazine after magazine at a skilled player and never kill them. That way the combination of both skill in gunplay and skill in where+when to fight become more important.

Excuse me but what the hell are you talking about?
There is no endless "blender" on the Ascent or even more apt in this example *(to Alloy's base design).... Lithcorp Central. There's no endless blender on Rockslide or Raven's for that matter either. Nor is there endless blendering at Eisa Tech or Baldur's Amp or Rime Analytics. Now there are some blenders happening on those continents in other places... like the Xelas/SilverValley areas, or the NC Arsenal and the Bastion, or the Rink and Andavari-SouthBank ... and of course Waterson's is STILL so bad that only 2 outits on my Server are coordinated and cheese hard enough to take it without a 60% zerg overpop.

TI Alloys (and Nason's Defiance too of course but that's because ALL of Hossin needs a total overhaul) is and was a special case ever since the Crown literally "lost the crown" of being the original endless Blender and it was split between Alloys and Crossroads. But at least Crossroads has an SCU linked to 3 Capture points PLUS three smaller lattice connections around it that can be taken to cut off Crossroads.

The actual systematic failure here with TI Alloys is that the Cut-offs Lattice connections are too convoluted even for the average Zerg-Platoons to gravitate towards. And nor are there any incentives for them go out of their way when a stagnant farm still gives almost every single wanted resource and Directive progress other than Merit and ISO. It either needs shorter hops to direct cut-offs, OR it needs the treatment that Biolabls never properly got...

One of the best things ever added last year for logistics reasoning and preventing stagnant farming, was these kinds of bases:


...Imagine if every Biolab had 3 of these as their "Satellite Bases" instead of the completely closed off hard-to-flip full on Facilities they have right now? ...even if they still required 3 minutes to cap, they'd be a real game changer. So Instead of just completely NUKING the Biolabs like they did on Esamir, let's say they changed the lattice connections instead so there was just the Jump pads at these open satellites leading to some Shield generators at the 2 Landing Pad entrances.

Obviously these sort of Lattice changes around TI Alloys would be more difficult to imagine than 3 of these open Caps being around the Biolabs.... but they could make it a design competition and let amateur designers in our community figure out how to incentivize real Logistics planning around the Cut-offs and Shield-Generator/SCU mechanics that would be in play for TI Alloys.

What are you talking about Demigan?? The TTK in Planetside is only 150 more milliseconds than Counterstrike's. An AK47 mixing body and head shots is so close to an Orion's TTK when every single bullet hits the head that most casuals couldn't even tell the difference in how quickly they died. And UNLIKE Counterstrike, you can actually consistently get away with a 400 milisecond lagswitch in Planetside while most spectators in Counterstrike will be able to RECORD you prefiring around corners.

Let's not also forget that the 2 most popular Shooters ever, were Fortnite and Halo ... which both have longer TTK's than Planetside does. And if you want Cult-Following FPS's with extremely skilled players who weren't also just twitch reflex Adderall addicts, then there's Quake3. Tribes, and TF2 (both Team Fortress, and TitanFall) which also had longer TTKs or only had Head-Crits on certain weapons. They did not have head crits on fully automatic weapons... which is in my personal opinion, Planetside's BIGGEST failing which leads directly to rest of the gun game being so "Un Fun" on the rest of the map. At most, Headshots from automatic weapons, (especially vehicle weapons) should only be doing "Mini Crits". ...then you could start making your argument about the TTK on body shots and having positioning matter like you seem to be implying needs to be given more leverage.

Alright, I'm back for that "more to follow" that I promised. I took a couple days off of PlanetSide.

It was brought up that we don't see endless blenders on Amerish. I was actually going to talk about that. Despite one of the screen shotted examples being Amerish, I've noticed that Amerish is the most likely continent to see people actually play the alert, and least likely to see players endlessly grinding one base. Obviously least often doesn't mean never. I would attribute this to the fact thag many of the bases on Amerish are designed in such a way that an out matched force can still make a defensive difference. The second thing I would attribute this to is that all 3 of The Ascent's satellites are difficult to attack, so it is possible for one faction to achieve a lasting victory over the middle. Finally, the various bases have a smarter way to attack them, which a patient PL with actual control can use to score a win on the attack. Add all these up, and you have a continent where fights reach logical conclusions, where players check the map to look for the next good fight, and in doing so become enticed to try to win the alert.
TLDR? Players are more inclined to play the alert on Amerish than other continents because it is more likely to coincide with fun (I'm hoping someone notices the nod)

So, more than the continent as a whole, the problem needs to come down to the design of the bases. The bases need to be designed with a handful of specific attack methods and defense methods in mind. This way effective leaders can make the battles happen, but disorganized trickle mobs will eventually dissolve. If every base is designed this way, and if the middle map bases are difficult to sustain an attack on, then the fights will move on, players will have to use the whole continent in their quest to find a fight, and the best way to find a fight will be to work as a team.

The problem is on the dev's end. I don't know if they don't know what the problem is, don't know what the solution os, or lack either the will or the resources to implement the solution, but one way or another this problem is on their end, and closing down the current favorite farm base won't fix it. The players will find a new TI equivalent.

Final note, also fix instant action to do a better job of picking the right fight for drop ins.

@iller I agree, those would make good satellite bases, and seeing as the Bio lab has MBT spawn in the basement, it wouldn't be unfair to the defenders to insist on some vehicle play to keep their bio lab. They would also make for a great way to integrate construction play instead of having it off in its own world. Unfortunately PMBs are going to die off completely in the next patch.

Well since you quoted the exact part that I'm talking about: The ease with which you can hit and kill a player. Look at your own examples: Some have more bullet magnetism, others larger player models, others extremely high muzzle velocity (if not hitscan with some weapons) and lots of mechanical weapons with explosions, beams and other things. Other games will have higher player movement combined with lots of dodges and flying. That's why I said that TTK isn't the only thing that determines how fast you can kill people, but how easy you can hit players.

PS2 is supposed to be geared to a more team-oriented gameplay, forgiving enough for newbies to be useful but not so forgiving that pure luck can easily win you a situation like taking over a chokepoint by just spray&pray. So it needs to straddle the middle-ground between easy to hit and hard to hit.

In my experience Planetside is a lot more solo-friendly simply because if you know what you're doing you can almost always find a fair fight where in Battlefield after a while servers often devolve into a curb-stomp. At the same time while organic teamwork tends to happen more often in Planetside the effect tends to be much greater when it happens in Battlefield.

1. BR games explicitly designed around a beefier TTK make for poor reference material when discussing shooters which do not fall under that genre.
2. Not quite sure where you get the idea that Halo is one of the two most popular shooters ever considering games like COD, CS and R6S have more concurrent players on an off day than the entire MCC did at its peak.
3. Even if we throw BR titles into the mix, PUBG has Fortnite beat. A game that in spite of the typical BR-tankiness has TTKs that are a lot closer to Planetside than to Halo.

For the most part people are going there because they want a big monster fight! Give the people what they want FFS

This is annoying. What RPG is saying is play the game how dev envisioned it, not how dev actually made it. Maybe dev envisions some type of fight happening all over wherever. I don't know. That's not what we have.

A similar phenomen occurred with the biolabs on Esamir. I'm sorry but I like biolabs and that's why I went to them. Thanks for nothing.

Ultimately people are there because they are either:

1. Having a lot of fun.

or

2. Having little fun but there are no better options.

Let's explore each.
If players are there because they are having fun and you take it away... THIS IS BAD.

If there are no better options and you take this away then it doesn't suddenly make the other options better. It just makes players again settle for the best available. Net result is the play experience is diminished. THIS IS BAD.

The problem that needs solved: There are no better options.

So why? What makes fights happen here? What makes them happen in other bases? Here are the ingredients I think are needed:

Good Defender spawns
A very safe spot for defenders to spawn with lots of cover reaching the main building...OR...an intermediate building / area between spawn and point(s)

A teleporter to serve as a free 2nd flank

Good Attacker spawns
MULTIPLE safe locations for attacker spawns so multiple fronts form in the base.

A "fallback" building or area where attackers can briefly defend and push again without being fully pushed to their spawn. (The crescent building often serves this purpose when the point is in a powerhouse)

Places for them to play
Keep run-from-spawn time for both attackers and defenders relatively close.

A defendable main building / point location that can be held if surrounded.

Multiple "arenas" distinct from each other are the best: At Ti you find this out towards the vehicle pad, vs on the hills to the north, vs in and out of the building, vs the south hillside and road. All different "arenas" where fights occur largely independent of what is happening in others.


TL;DR
DON'T TAKE TI ALLOYS AWAY - COPY ITS MAGIC!

Imma just go ahead and say it: You might not know what players want.

GAH, I gotta post again it's so stupid...

People are going to X instead of ABC. So the question is do something to ABC or do something to X?

Why does RPG keep doing the wrong thing?!?

I think you are missing an important ingredient here: What are the non-squad/platoon players doing?

You herald Amerish as the perfect team continent which lets squad and platoon leaders to get far more out of a base than the uncoordinated masses. Yet there won't be any less uncoordinated people on Amerish than there are on Esamir or Indar. So if you think that Amerish has a better flow it can't be done without the uncoordinated players.
I think it's more to do with where the bases begin. We see on most continents that the 24/7 bases are either on the starting frontline or near it. This makes gathering there easier so uncoordinated people can find their place. Amerish does not have that as much, and some bases like Biolabs are designed differently and not as easily kept in a 24/7 fighting state.

I would not equate this to more fun for players. It's like seeing a continent where all TI Alloys and Biolabs are farther away from the frontline if not changed to not make a 24/7 fight there possible. Yes people are more spread out and forced into the gameplay they've been avoiding which makes it more fun for you the person who actually enjoys that gameplay, but is everyone else truly having a good time?

Redesigning the bases won't work. It's too much work and too hard to know exactly what makes the Amerish bases tick differently. You would still have gameplay that encourages players to avoid combat and out-number your opponents to win battles.
So on the road to making it fun that is something that needs to change. The goals should encourage players to make fun, engaging fights rather than drop a platoon on a 12vs12 fight or grief your opponents till they leave. It's one reason why I suggest incentives and mechanics that help the defenders when outnumbered: They get to add time to the capture timer if they are outnumbered so they can halt the attackers without the need to hold the points, more outnumbered means more time added (doesn't work while standing in a painfield). And ways for defenders to better reach places in their own base without being locked in their spawnroom.
We also need to look at the goals themselves. Having excessive players in one area compared to their opponents should be disadvantageous, but not punishing and not immediately. The attackers should not be punished just because someone else decided to join their fight or the defenders decided to leave. Keep in mind that having a 100v100 brawl should not be punished, just having excessive players compared to your opponents.

Perhaps you could assign a value to each base based on the average difference in population. A base that had a near-equal population throughout it's attack/defence will have a higher value than a base that was zerged or ghost-capped. Add some caveats to make sure the people who leave last-minute won't affect the score or that a zergfit won't just try to zerg a base that has been contested for a long time. Let the game also keep track of the average playercount difference present when the decisive base capture happens, a Biolab that always requires 2:1 odds to capture should not be worth less than a base that can be captured easily with equal odds.

I think it's more solo-friendly because even when playing solo you are still playing with your allies.
Anywhere on the in-game battlefield you quickly know where your allies are and where your enemies are. Even if you don't communicate and actively play together you still make decisions based on the current situation. Attack a chokepoint, hold the point, pick off people trying to flank or flank yourself etc. These idea's only make sense if you know where your allies and enemies are and what the current situation is at the area you chose to fight at.

PS2 should have banked on that more intuitive method of teamplay long ago, rather than segregate players into squads and platoons that barely acknowledge players outside of them. A better map system so players can see at a glance the general whereabouts of allies and any detected enemy would go a long way in helping this type of intuitive teamplay along as players get more information to choose what role they have to play next. An enemy vehicle column has been detected to be on the way to your base? Currently you can't know about it until they reach your minimap range or a squad/platoonmember tells you. With this system you know that something's up and can prepare by picking the infantry/vehicle and terrain you think is best.
SImilarly if you are at one end of for example an AMP station you cannot oversee what is happening at the other end and what kind of help they might or might not need.

Just having that information, provided by all the spot and detection methods your allies already have and use for people nearby, would be a powerful tool in itself and a solid start to actual teamplay. Just imagine it: A solo player wanting to chill could just grab an infiltrator and start spotting enemy movement somewhere, and players (including squad/platoon leaders!) can use that information to make more informed decisions based off of that. Vice-versa the solo player can benefit from the information the squads and platoons gather, allowing them to support attacks and defenses that the squads and platoons are making without the need for actually being in a squad/platoon.