Can SOE implement strategy before we leave out of boredom?

Yes this is a little bit of a rant if you don't like it stop reading here.

I'm not sure if this is just my outfit suffering from players losing interest due to the missing lack of strategic objectives on a grander scale but I'd like to hear some other opinions on this. I mean when you lock a continent it's pointless because the enemy comes back at you within 5 minutes again so you can't really move on to another continent because after 30 mins you've already lost the "benefit" of the one you just locked. Is glorified warpgate camping really all there is to be untill there's a more meaningfull intercontinental metagame implemented? I mean I know there's things like new continents planned and revised continent lock mechanics but will it be in time before most of us have left out of boredom? (No the sky is not falling, the magnetic field of the earth is merely fading)

I thought Searhus was said to be almost ready a few twitch streams back (maybe 2 or 3 months ago by now) and last meeting it was suddenly on the 7 month plan what happened there? The gameplay feels so shallow when it's just whoever brings more vehicles takes all or you end up backcapping empty hexes with the occasional small resistance along the way. There is no incentive to use actual tactics because they don't have the impact they should have because if things are too tough for the opposing faction there's at least 6 ways for them to just ignore you and cap other empty hexes lying around your defended chokepoint. Casual cert farming is more rewarding then actually trying to work as a team as it stands now and it's getting to me.

I rake in the certs like a mad man when I go lone wolf at the crown as compared to rolling as a team with my outfit whereas I can't help feeling it should be the other way around. I've had days where I could play ps1 for 10+ hrs on end whereas I'm struggling even to get a 3 hour session in ps2 without it feeling like a drag. I never get the sense of accomplishment in ps2 except for when we resecure a tech plant just seconds before it flips to the enemy (and xp wise we're actually better off letting it fall into enemy hands and then retaking it).

Any other outfits experiencing a loss of interest among their playerbase due to shallow gameplay?

TLDR: Game lacks complexity and depth and our more "hardcore" people are losing interest.

This.

This sounds like a great idea. I would love to be able to cert into strategy.

Like, maybe it could be area based. At level one I can activate my strategy module and have a strategy effect within 80 meters? That way I can strategy a choke point to deflect enemy movements or strategy an enemy stronghold.

Though I can see how maxed strategy might be op if everyone was using it.

Wake up SOE! Add strategy at once fix your game.

Or see how defense exp and missions help. Also continent lockdowns. Ya know. That stuff.

I warned you in the first sentence of my post, you should've probably stopped reading there. Don't get me wrong I'm definitely looking forward to defense exp, player generated missions and proper continent lockdowns however if you've read my post fully you would've understand that my concern is if this will be implemented in time because if this is at the end of the 3 year plan then I'm not very optimistic anymore (this is a side effect of being an engineer in RL I guess, you always assume the worst case scenario and hope that reality will eventually be better then that which it often is not tbh).

Sorry but strategy or NO strategy this game is addictingly fun. So I would hardly say that it gets boring. I have over 45 games in my steam library and this is the only one I have been playing the last couple of months.

This coming from me, a guy who hardly plays Space-sci-fi games. Sorry HALO.

The tone I took with you was sarcastic and unnecessarily caustic, I apologize for that.

I did read your post and I did like it. Hence responding.

I concur that the pace of implementation seems to be, at best, glacial. But the current fiasco suggests that's something we should perhaps maintain a level of thanks for. Waiting 6 months for what seem to be simple issues or critical additions is somewhat mind blowing. But that may simply be the byproduct of playing more complex games.

Strategy.

Strategy as an idea within the context of this game suggests some manner of movement that results in a decisive victory. The best we can do right now is capture a spot of territory or crush an advance.

That advance will resume again in a few moments. The captured base gone when you next login.

Im coming from EVE. One of the appeals of this game, for me, is that the challenges are ever present within the context of the extremely fluidic map. A victory, a real victory, would mean what? That the other guy is literally completely locked down? That they can no longer pull armor of any kind? What would solidify a decisive win that couldn't be undone by the changing of time zones and the counter of a fresh force that would leave the game more enjoyable for everyone? Victories in that game mean that the other guy is crushed and gone. I imagine they mean
The same in most contexts. I'm not sure if that should apply here. Time sinks and static defenses are concepts which enable victory without immediate human response but do not sit well when one considers the kind of "quick deploy pew pew" gameplay that is being offered up here.

Planet side is a very small game with an economy that rests almost entirely independent of your actions. The strategies involved rarely move beyond the immediate conflict and the positioning of your forces. Which is grand. If I logged in to find that we had "won" then what? I guess we could have a parade.

Posting this from my phone. I imagine it reads somewhat strangely.

I commend you sir I dread to think of posting so much text from my phone!
Maybe for every 1 person that likes complexity and depth that left they now gained 3 that care nothing about it and just want to pew pew then I guess it's a good business decision from SOE.

This thread should deserve a long, well written and thoughtful answer. But as I've said the same in dozens of other threads, throughout both the beta and since launch I just don't have the time or the energy. I will say that my Outfit (full of veterans from PS1 - the kind that aren't super bitter and negative about every little thing and for the first few months did indeed enjoy the game) has been shockingly quiet the last month. Was hoping many of them would resurface with the latest patch but no dice there. Truly saddening.

Honestly, the answer is straight forward. Right now there is no incentive for "strategic" activity like surrounding bases. Bases are 100% self sustaining, limiting the ONLY "strategic" option to ZERGING bases which more often then not just turns into an hour long "meat grinder".

[SOLUTION] Leverage the existing "influence" and hex mechanic to say. If a base is completely cutoff from all HEX's leading back to their warpgate all spawn rooms, turrets, shields, etc. "lose power" and shutdown till power is restored.

This would have a massive and positive effect on gameplay, think about it yourself but here are a couple thoughts.

1) Provides squads and individuals a tactical gameplay option other than zerging. If a bases is a meatgrinder (read: biolab/crown) you can try surrounding it. (Including advanced tactics like cutting off a whole sting of bases)

2) Will discourage the never-ending meatgrider base fights by forcing defenders and attackers to split their forces to either try for or defend the surround.

3) Requires no changes in AMS mechanics because without working power a base will soon fall, but a wellplaced AMS provides defenders a short period to recap a surrounding base and restore power.

All this will lead to much more varied and interesting gameplay, imagine the intense/rewarding fights that will occur defending/attacking a strong base and that last lonely point supplying it power.

The game cannot move forward until the performance issues and the bazillion bugs that we have now are fixed. Asking them to move forward on a damaged foundation can only spell trouble.

I disagree, but that is only my opinion. Personally I can forgive bugs and performance issues if the game is fun. Everyday is less and less fun for me and my friends because its just the same thing over and over again either zerg>cap or zerg>meatgrinder...

That being said, what is ideal about this [Solution] is that it uses an existing mechanic so they would just need to have a check if influence = 0% set all bases components to non-operable (like what happens when a satellite base is "white" because its in-between capturing) Leaving them more time for work on other problems.

And in PS1, after winning over the continents, then what?

We had parades in ps1, they were awesome!

Oh yeah, that is so fun!!!!! /sarcasm

Talk and whine all you want, but adding "strategy" things, or metagame things to the game will only satisfy some people's personal egos. The core of the game is pew pew, and the outfit/platoon maneuvering that goes into how to find and win the pew pew. Anything more than that is just smokes.

And finding some good pew pew?? The enemy wants the same, they will also be looking for it.

Its a free to play game, people will and do come for the pew pew, not for any metagame.

Competitive game modes will actually be more fun than just more metagame.

its what you get when the foundation of the game copies something akin to call of duty.

Battlefield

I was pretty pissed off when they released without any metagame. They can fix bugs, add nice hats or whatever but the game will be dead by time they get around to actually implementing any type of metagame.

They have nobody to blame but themselves for releasing way to early. Either way I think they are ******.

I'm just curious, but what do your "hardcore" players play other than this game? I just want to know what other game offers this thing called "strategy" that much better than planetside 2.

no to your bad ideas,its fine how it is.

Not at all. The players make the complexity and depth. It's a sandbox game, not an amusement park. I think those who are leaving are the least "hardcore" unless they are leaving for something like Arma.

Problem: Players don't defend.

Solution: PS1 cloak AMS, PS1 mines, PS1 spitfires, PS1 motion detector

So it's not just my outfit suffering from this then good to know.

Maybe hardcore was the wrong term I meant the people that used to play 6 hours or more a day from our outfit the first couple of months and now only play in short stints of 1 or 2 hours max and then log off bored.

Well, thats true, at least for me. I am a MilSim player and play ARMA II and similar games and PS2 is anything but complex and deep. Just look at PS1. It was also player driven but gave players so much more stuff to work with.