Ammunition -- how to add to the Planetside 2 Metagame with only minor changes

Seriously, while I understand your idea and where it comes from, I have to disagree.

First off, it adds nothing to the "metagame" it solely adds to the game.

Second, as many have said, we need to encourage defending, not discourage it. Right now if you want to defend you're either at a bio lab or the crown, everything else is meaningless to defend.

As I have said multiple times in the OP and the comments, I agree that bases need to be designed to be more defensible. My changes aren't part of base layout. They add to the tactics commanders can implement. Just because base layout is currently too hard to defend does not mean you shouldn't add offensive tactics to the game. Furthermore, in this case, these tactics can be used offensively and defensively.

And to your "metagame comment." I agree that it is a slight misuse of the word metagame, but this is how most people seem to be using the word in these forums and in the PS2 community. And if you really want to get technical, just replace every time I say metagame with the word "strategy" or "tactics."

Thanks for the feedback

Metagame would be something like: you to have to distribute resources to conquered bases.
Warpgate should have infinte resources and every base out there needs to be supplied (by players) with resources.
Players will still have resources but its just gained by doing something ingame (repairing, killing, capping etc). if a vehicle is spawned, their resources AND the resources of the base will be used. if a base is out of resources, you cant spawn anything anymore not even players (requires sundys to actualy recharge resources). the only place where you can spawn what you want is the warpgate.

this way you would have metagame
- you need to have logistics
- cutting of a territory would actualy mean something (resource transportation route is danger)
- zerging becomes way harder
- amount of mindless spawned vehicles is reduced
- your 40% world pop wont mean **** if you cant keep your logistics working
- <insert random bonus here>

ofc this needs tons of fine tuning but thats kinda what i like to see in PS2.

I like huge FONTS AND I CANNOT LIE. YOU OTHER BROTHERS CAN'T DENY.

Maybe next time you can color every fifth word red like it's a zelda game too. I love it when people do that. Everybody loves zelda.

like this for example. its balm for your eyes !

I like the idea. Anything that gives the game flavor like this is a good thing imo.

That being said, there aren't enough Crowns in the game for this to not just make it even yet more hard to defend.

The crown is a great strategic location because its top down with no overlooks with which to tank farm it. Most bases are tank farmable however.

Bases are strategic catastrophes because most have infinite attack vectors for enemy tanks. Crown has 2 points of ingress for tanks and 3 for infantry. Its what makes the crown the crown. If you could drive a tank up that hill from any direction like in most other bases, the crown wouldn't even be a thing, just another random non-strategic base.

Sorry, I wrote it on Google Docs first and imported it. The formatting got all screwy, and even just trying to indent properly is completely screwing up. Don't really know how to fix..

I do say that I agree with the implementing of the tactics. If they were to implement this after redesigning bases so they could be more easily defended, I would love it. It would making defending the flanks much more meaningful and could help break up zergs so that there's not a boatload of vehicle spam at one area. I think there are a couple more things that could help hinder the cut off territory, but as it stands it's a very good concept. Just needs to be implemented at the right time.

BB code editor option may help.

Maybe if defense XP was ramped up and bases were fixed i.e actually good I would agree your idea would be great but I would still have doubts the zerg would tolerate being gimped.

I think this is a great idea and I disagree with those that say this would hurt defending. The only thing this will hurt is cert farming which is a good thing. You have to be joking if you think defending your territory is staying holed up in a single base while your enemies capture the rest of the map.

I'm not sure about this idea, but it would be cool if there was some depth added to this game. Right now the objectives are little bit too simple.

This game could use an NPC caravan that transports resources to far off bases which can be raided or defended.

First of all ... this suggestion has absolutely 0 to do with metagame.

Secondly its a great zerg buff and yet another defensive nerf ...

Third point would be .... that it doesent fix anything it only makes things worse and cause people to suicide the moment they run out of ammo and just get a fresh clone.

So in conclusion ... thank you for the idea but no.

Can you please explain your comments?

How is this a buff to the zerg?

I've stated many times that I agree these changes would need to coincide with redesigns of the bases/base layouts to make territories more defensible.

Also, how will you ever have strategy if you don't have consequences for being outplayed? If you are completely surrounded, there should be some type of penalty.

For an example in another videogame, in Starcraft 2, if you allow the protoss to quadruple expand without attacking, you should expect to lose. You can't sit there complaining that protoss is OP AFTER you let them get into such a powerful position.

Why should players allow themselves to become completely surrounded and not have any consequences?

Furthermore, these consequences are very minor. I am not saying you don't get any ammunition. You just have to adjust your play style with engineers and ammo sunderers.

Dont you allready lose the bonuses from the rest of the territory you own ? Ability to spawn MBT's for one example.

Aint you cut off from the resources allso ? Atleast you lose the influence and succumb much easier and faster to the enemy attack.

The thing is ... we dont have alot of ammo to begin with and making it more limited would just lead into people abandoning any territory alltogether that gets cut off. Antitank and antiair would be rendered into garbage as they are heavy on ammo spending.

As we know zergs aint much on keeping territory but they are good at carving lines on the map. This makes the linecarving just that much more efficient.

I agree with your anit air point. Good feedback.

But I completely disagree with your zerg comment. How does it make line carving more efficient? It makes line carving extremely risky and almost impossible.

This is the one argument I decided to counter. We don't have a lot of ammo? 30 rounds is a LOT for a bolt action sniper rifle, and if you get surrounded, you could swap for an ammunition belt. That's probably not a good solution, but that's another reason why he suggested ammo sunderers.

Eh ... Not much of a counter there mate. Considering you spend about a clip per kill even in close combat with vanu carbines ... And even with sniper rifles you dont headshot everytime nor even hit everytime.

Still think the original proposal is no good.

I think using an ammunition belt is genius! It would actually make the ammo belt have a place in the game (as opposed to be rather underused). Nice thinking!

I don't like the idea of having less ammo.

But just because I don't like this idea, doesn't mean the zerg 'tactics' shouldn't have a (big) penalty, a tactical disadvantage.

After the tech plant change, there are no bases that are defensible against mindless zergs.

Bases, terrain or game mechanics need to be changed to make zerging less effective.