Hi everyone, first post from a noob at PS2, but vet with 30 years of computer gaming under the belt ;-) I read all the posts in here (can´t play as I am on the road with my laptop), and just feel I have to say something about the perceived inbalance and gameplay going downhill. We have all seen it in various online games over the last years, all the way from fast FPS to complicated games like EVE online. The developers face the dilemma of human nature: Everyone likes killing, no one likes to be killed. Everyone likes owning, no one likes to get owned. BUT: You need someone getting killed to kill ;-) So there will always need to be someone unhappy to make someone happy... There are slight variations to expectations and goals in everyone - some are in for the stats, some are in for the rank, some are in for the strat, some are in for the fight... and often these goals are at the opposite extremes of gamedesign. I can´t join the discussion about why people don´t defend the rushes, but if you try to draw paralles to real wars you can ask yourself what makes soldiers defend in face of overwhelming odds? It´s mostly some higher moral motivation like defending your homes or the sense of duty that real military duty holds. This is something that can´t really be recreated in a computer game. So if you force people into sacrificing themselves by implementing a game mechanic, you are back at square one: No one likes to play a game that isn´t "fun". For me the answer is in a "roleplaying" mindset. I like defending a base against overwhelming odds with a few good friends, even if I get killed over and over. Sometimes you succeed in holding off the attackers until more reinforcement comes in, and while this is horrible for my stats, my certs and my rank, it actually is FUN and satisfying for me. In other games (like AcesHigh) we had a certain "codex" at times, that help alleviate some design shortcomings and make the game more fun for everyone. It worked off of a honour system (small player base), something impossible nowadays, I know. I think there are counters to most tactics I see in PS2 - if there are 20 tanks decked out with HE why not spawn a tank with AP and go kill them? If AA is so useless, why not spawn your own fighter and drop the gunships? I have read a lot of good and valid suggestions, of course, and I trust the developers to keep balancing and adjusting carefully. Just one thing is certain: Some people will always be unhappy. See you on the battlefield, Litjan
Good stuff Litjan. Big problem though, is that spawn camping is just too easy, or attacking obvious targets (gens) which have 0 defensive setup is just too easy. You can spawn all the HA you like, but you just won't make it out of the spawn door if there are 2 or 3 tanks guns trained on it. And I say that as someone who enjoys tanking. Tanks and planes are strangling the infantry lifeblood out of the game imo.
I can see that this is happening - in reality this balances out because a tank is so much more expensive than a soldier, so there will always be more infantry than vehicles... in a game like this, it could only be achieved by artificially shortening the supply of tanks (longer respawn time, more cost) - but this would be no "fun" again. Again, totally unexperienced PS2 player here - but if there is a horde spawncamping in tanks, why not assemble a horde at the next uncontested base and flush them out with tanks as well?
That's what's happening (fall back and counter-zerg). But it's very unsatisfying to have to do it every single time. And the expense of the vehicle should not be a factor. The game needs to ensure every main player type (air/tank/inf) has its place. At the moment infantry is getting squeezed out. And since the bulk of players at any given moment are infantry this is a dangerous game for SOE to play.
Agree with what you say. It´s probably also an issue that with the massive influx of new players, many of them (me included) are easy bait, not leveled out correctly and all too easy to "farm". This might change with more experience on an average base, so there is less incentive for tankers to play this tactic?
I think you are all thinking too much. Why defend a base? Because ideally on any map there would be a front line as in a real war where you defended what you have and push forward when possible, thereby not losing what is behind you. In this all you have is people running around taking bases and then leaving them completely undefended to attack the next one. 3 minutes later it changes hands and a push back to your warp gate occurs. In the largest bases it starts just after the first generator is repaired as everyone has cleared out and left 1 sniper to run around cloaked overloading them all. I think the root of the problem is most people play like COD, points for capping and kills. Defending is not in their heads and they don't get it. And when defending something like Crimson when you have all the gunships bomb spamming and columns of tanks, there is no defence as they take the turrets out in seconds and you are overrun. What is needed is to slow down the capping of spawn points and the overloading of generators, They all happen too fast, i.e. instantly after they have just been capped or repaired. Defending becomes a chore when you hear 'generator compromised', generator compromised', generator compromised' while still repairing the one that just blew up,
Allright, I see the problem. Had the same in Battlefields larger conquest maps - everyone running around in circles taking undefended flags I have read many good suggestion to stop this - my own would be to adjust XP point gain in relation to defender/attacker ratio (so an overwhelming force would gain less than a smaller one) and also adjust XP point gain for defenders depending on surrounding border "influence". This would make defending against a deep "thrust" more rewarding, leading to more stable frontlines. Maybe even introduce a bonus depending on distance from "warp gate" - making the defense more desirable and "dire" the closer the enemy gets to the "heartland"... Of course these mechanics are complicated and the majority of people would not get them - still finding satisfaction in overrunning a small defending team. Which - if you think about it - is the most desirable "real world" tactic employed by modern mobile doctrine tactics. In a real war, a good leader will desperately try to avoid a "fair" fight when attacking
i completely agree with your post. maybe they should add some exclusive titles and ribbons. so not all is buyable with cert only but you must have achieved sth. for it.. for example a yellow heart on the chest for 500 cert if you defended 200 bases! then whenevr you come to defend a base people see your yellow heart and feel stronger nad more brave maybe and stay with you and fight.... something like this.. just an example. real world mechanics sometimes also work ingame too..
More like the spawn system is doing it. The exact same thing happens in infantry only battles. It's a flawed design. You HAVE to camp the spawn or people would pour through it into the base you're taking. As long as the base provides an indestructible spawn point that works until the enemy cap it entirely or kill the SCU, spawn camping will continue in the face of any changes to air, vehicles, or whatever else. TBH I think bases should be harder to penetrate. Drop pods can piss off, better walls to limit LA (not stop completely), and the spawn point stops working if the base is under attack for a few minutes. Enemies breaking in will rely on LA fighting their way in instead of just hopping up the wall anywhere, or will have to use sunderers/galaxies to bypass shields. Any further defenders will need to use sunderers outside the innermost shield to spawn there, mount an external counter attack, or arrive in a galaxy. Maybe then we'd get some real battles instead of a few minutes of fighting followed by half an hour of trading shots through shields.
Completely disagree. Human Nature is prioritized as so: 1.) Not Die. (survive) 2.) Get Rewarded. it is just often 'Killing' fulfills both of those priorities that it just seems like it is one. But lets be honest, in an MMO environment, Grinding (the process of working some aspect repeatably to gain a steady stream of rewards) is probably the most widely done thing in any game and is often used to Pad the length and time spent in a game. This can include everything but killing... be from Overloading Generators, to Hacking Terminals, to Repairing Turrets. Why do people rush from base to base attacking? Because in a large group you often don't die. Because capping bases provide a reward. When you defend any base, because of how poorly they are designed, you die... A lot. From spawn camping ESFs, to your turret getting owned by 5 heavy tanks, to an Infiltrator stabbing you in the back while you repair, to a Generator exploding in your face because you couldn't stabilize it fast enough. And even when your side successfully thwarting an attack, you are Not Rewarded for your efforts. Instead we are to believe that a passive 15% buff which you receive for simply being in your territory is 'reward enough' for your efforts. ... except, you have to 'kill something' to even receive that 'reward' because simply scaring people off isn't considered defending. In real wars, soldiers defend positions because it provides them with a higher chance of survival. Fortified positions have larger guns, are protected by feet of concrete or earth, and countless pitfalls for enemy attackers which not only give you a higher chance of survival but a better chance to succeed; even against overwhelming odds. Reward is provided through Survival, to state in the face of overwhelming odds you stood stalwart and survived. This isn't because you 'roleplay' it is because you quantify success over all else as you realize that because you re-spawn death is an irrelevant fear. 20 HE shells Still pop a tank... You need 80 tank shells to kill all the enemy tanks, which you don't have... You can not constantly Re-spawn Tanks. Because AA is often more useful then Fighters. Because Gunships have defenses against ESFs. Because you have to contend with Enemy Anti-Air assets. You can not constantly Re-Spawn Fighters.
I fear that sandbox games are decades ahead of the players. Most people want their gaming experience handed to them, and they expect their scripted win. There will be a day when people gain more reward from owning their experience, and creating that same experience will be the norm. Oh, happy day.
