Address the real issues...

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by lyravega, Dec 26, 2013.

  1. lyravega

    !!!Wall of text ahead. Just need to get these off my chest, sorry if I offend anyone in any way, and lets try to keep the topic civilized if we can!!!

    You are still doing what you are good at; ignoring the real problems SOE.

    The base designs are pathetic
    Defenders are always at a disadvantage. As opposed to just one spawn location, with maybe a teleporter to another secure building, attackers have sunderers that everyone can unlock with a very low cost, and spawn from any vehicle terminal.

    On top of that, the capture points are usually located at places where sunderers can deploy right next to, while defenders have to go for a (possibly) suicide run. The no-deploy zones are ridiculously small, for bases with multiple capture points, usually do not cover or extend from the "other" points.

    You changed the layout of bases (for defenders), but that wasn't enough. All you did was, upgrading the spawn boxes (so that defenders have more windows to shoot from when they are being camped), and adding some shields & obstructions to the towers. But they can still be camped, with ease. Amp station changes included tunnels that lead to entry points, which are often camped aswell.

    But while you did those, you also added more stuff for the attackers' favor, and they have a bigger impact. Sunderer-garages on Esamir bases are an example. Sunderer-garages under Bio-Lab landing pads, where infantry can access to the jump-pads easily, is another. Or the "balconies" that the side-jumping pads (for neighbour bases) on those landing pads, are another...

    Esamir changes mostly included walls on nearly every base, and all that did was preventing armor from rolling in. But same thing still stands; attacking infantry still has the upper hand, even on Esamir bases. And the entire area is still wide open for aerial assault. And guess what these stuff lead to? Let me name two; flak armor and lock-on missile buffs.

    Idea of "combined arms"...
    Instead of separating infantry from vehicles, everything is mixed in between; and this is your idea of "combined arms". It hasn't changed a single little bit ever. Till you change your idea about that, you'll keep destroying parts of the game one by one. Terrible base designs is one of the main reasons that infantry and vehicles get mixed up altogether, all the time.

    What you are doing here is, taking the lazy path. Instead of looking at the design of the bases, you make other changes to make the game easier for infantry. You need to separate infantry from others, or as said above, you'll keep destroying parts of the game one by one.

    The idea of alerts is a good one, but the execution is beyond ridiculous
    All you created is, a reward system for factions that have zergs with half a brain. There is no grand strategy involved, it is a zergfest after another zergfest, and the game is based on camping spawn rooms most of the time. In such environment, putting something out like alerts was a terrible idea.

    The population balance...
    This is a hard topic, and a controversial one. Even if you have agreed on some points that I've made so far, you may disagree here. But, can anyone count how many battles were a base-camp one after another, and how many battles were more or less "balanced"?

    While there are differences between the empires, all three sides are as symmetrical as they can get. However, population throws this into the abyss, and makes the game as asymmetrical as it can be.

    You've done just a little to balance the populations on continents. Sure, a max. of +50% XP bonus is juicy, but it doesn't matter when the an empire has even 15% more than your population. It makes a big difference on the world map, and usually what happens is, players from the empire with lower numbers migrating to another continent.

    The bigger problem is, the regional populations (where it says 1-12/12-24/etc...). Continent populations doesn't matter while you are fighting in a specific base. Many of us may have seen battles that say 48+ for both sides, but on the pie chart, one side has maybe even lesser than 25% of the total regional population. Assuming that 25% is 50 people, that means they are fighting against 150... And it is a lost battle.

    Attackers are snowballs here, they get bigger and bigger, while the defenders are like ice cubes under the sun, melting slowly. The (yet again) terrible base layouts give them lesser chance to succeed in defending, and even so, there is no reward for doing so (attackers at least get capture XP and maybe a ribbon, defenders maybe only a ribbon if they're lucky). When a base is lost, defenders lose their cohesion, either go somewhere else, or divide between the following lattice links, while attackers keep their cohesion and focus on another base.

    Sorry for the wall of text. Thanks for reading / not reading / etc... as I've said, just needed to get it off my chest.

    Now that my personal opinions are over, here are some suggestions...
    -Make AMS a tiered upgrade, and a costly one.
    -Add a ticket system to AMS, each tier of AMS adds more tickets; if an AMS runs out of tickets, spawning on this AMS will not be possible
    -Make AMS replenish its tickets back only from Ammo Towers

    -Add more spawn rooms to bases, or teleporters from the spawn room to another secure building in the base (no stupid tunnels that lead to another camped exit)
    -Add more capture points to bases, and spread them around the defender exit points & attacker entry points
    -Separate infantry from vehicles (not just land); put dome shields over the base against aerial attacks, erect walls around them, or add underground facilities where the real infantry battles would take place, etc... but leave small bases exposed to something, or everything will look like how Esamir is, ugly
    -Increase the radius of no-deploy zones, and make them extend from every capture point. For Amp Stations, make all areas inside the walls a no-deploy zone

    -Re-conceptualize (re-think?) alerts:
    You adapted a point system for world... something... thing, the name escapes me at the moment (where you are looking at the base population, you can see how many points that holding a base or capturing it would bring). Why not try to adapt it for the alerts, and decide the victor at the end depending on the accumulated points (dominating victory excluded, of course)? Of course I'm not simply saying slap it there and be done with it. Not just continent populations, but base populations also need to be factored into this, if the alert is about specific points rather than continent domination.

    -Add timed resource income & XP penalties for regional population superiority (only if both sides are above 48+)
    -Remove regional resource income via XP gain from attackers if they have regional population superiority (again, only if both sides are above 48+), and only grant it to defenders (if you didn't know, while fighting on a territory, you gain resources via XP gain, resource depends on the resource type of the region)
    -Give more XP bonus to defenders depending on the size they're fighting against
    • Up x 4
  2. Phyr

    Reducing rewards isn't going to reduce population, because at the end of the day the zerg is still going to reward better then fighting against it. The only impact it will have is an overall reduction in server population ie; people leaving the game.
  3. lyravega

    Yeah, guess so... How about personal missions? As in, if a place is under heavy attack for example, a mission (more like a "personal alert") that people can attend to in order to boost the defender population over there? I don't know. In such a game, we can't expect a perfect (population) balance, but still... good to brainstorm, I guess.
  4. Phyr

    Population isn't going to get much better then it already is. The only option left is a forced population balance, and that just isn't an option in this game. You can tweak rewards all you want, but if you can't even step out of the spawn room there's just no point.
    • Up x 1
  5. FigM

    We used to have a great base design - The Crown.

    And people complained it was attracting everyone to go fight there and not other places. So what's the SOE solution? lets make The Crown as bad as other bases, so people don't want to go fight there just as much as they don't want to go fight at any other base. Way to think outside the box.
  6. Phyr

    The crown was a terrible base.
    • Up x 3
  7. FigM

    A terrible base that majority of players wanted to fight at. Maybe they are all just "stupid casuals" that don't know what's good for them. But you shouldn't judge how other people have fun. If majority of people like something, the minority who disagrees should not take that away from them for selfish reasons. Let the people decide where they want to go and what they want to do. Stop trying to force people to play the game the way you think they should play.

    That's why this game will never go mainstream popular
  8. Phyr

    No. People went to the crown because of low server populations and no reason to go anywhere else. It was the only place to find other people, so if you wanted to shoot something you HAD to go to the crown. The crown, being so incredibly hard to take, meant battles lasted a long time, and each faction almost always had a connection to it because the landscape funneled you there. Actually fighting there sucked.
    • Up x 2
  9. Gorganov

    • Up x 2
  10. FigM

    The Crown nerf isn't the only example of one group of people trying to impose their ideas of "how you should play" on others.

    The new lattice system is another such example. The whole purpose of it is to limit choices, force people to play a certain way. And it's yet another reason why this game is going backwards, not forwards.

    I know it's hard to admit, there are always excuses, always justifications. But what it comes down to is limiting people's choices, limiting the freedom. It makes the game worse, less attractive to new people
  11. Phyr

    Players can't handle choice, and HEX proved that. When players are actively avoiding each other in a PVP game there's a problem. Before the crown nerf and server mergers there was only one option, the crown. Get off your high horse, hypocrite.
    • Up x 3
  12. Tuco

  13. Sordid

    Why not?
  14. Tuco

    It won't fix anything
  15. Aegie

    My favorite idea is the AMS ticket idea- that is pretty great and would add another layer that puts more emphasis on strategy and teamwork.
    • Up x 1
  16. Sen7rygun

    For most of that rant, i think they're fair concerns but base design and terrain/bases based around combined arms play is slowly getting better. Your idea about AMS having "ammo" is interesting though, it would be nifty to trial it and see how it changes the logistical game.
    • Up x 2
  17. eldarfalcongravtank

    i'd say remove the ability for defenders to fire through their spawnroom shields to hit enemies outside!

    this will solve a lot of problems because the defenders will actually push for the objective. and if the defender's situation is hopeless at the base, they know they cant farm easy kills behind the shield so they retreat to another base and form an attack force to reconquer the base that was just lost
  18. Tuco

    Doesn't matter how you design a base, wherever a defender exists, it will be camped, the only solution is an AMS that can be hidden like the PS1 cloaking AMS or the WWIIONLINE UMS.

    I"m talking to a wall, half of you out there thought the galaxy AMS was a great idea. lol
  19. Pikachu

    I think the crown thing was to a degree just an addiction, mainly for attackers. The defenders might actually enjoyed it.

    About being forced back to spawn room. Tell me for what it is wrong that defenders should lose when they are overwhelmed. Pushing people to spawn room is simply an alternative method of victory in practise. The game rules doesnt say that since you still have to wait for the timer but its how it works. The defenders just have this delusion that they should still keep trying to defend the base when they are overwhelmed, just because the timer hasnt said they lost. How could you possibly make a base where the defenders always have a chance to push away the attackers? Hm maybe there could be tunnels that were big enough for sunderers so the defenders can create spawn points of their own at varoius places. Anyway I dont have issue with being pushed back to spawn room besides that the attackers has to endure 5+ minutes of boredom. I wish it was another victory condition.

    About dome shields, most people disliked them on PTS. I think its partially because of removal of things they are accustomed to. If it was there from the beginning they wouldnt mind as much. I think some bases could have been built like actual big buildings with a roof. Like putting a roof on the whole freaking octagon. Preferably a white force field likr in biolabs. I bet the elite liberator pilots love bombarding the octagon. Speaking of Esamir bases, there are still some where infantry can climb up hills around the spawn room and shoot down as soon as anyone comes out. Not good.

    I wish tower bases were far more enclosed so the would not be bombarded by tanks all the time.

    I really would not like to see the red zones expanded.

    A bit off topic but today we had one of thosr rare uncertain big fights with lots of fun. I thought we would lose the defense but in thevlast minute we took the point back. After lots of effort we drove the terrans back. It was at Eisa btw.
  20. Pikachu

    I like this too. Anything to make defenders understand that their base is lost.