Devstream summary, Wrel strikes again.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Liewec123, Aug 28, 2020.

  1. Liewec123

    You're excited that Wrel is deleting a third of the bases on esamir and ruining the rest?...riiiight.
    Maybe they should delete some weapons next, wouldn't that be fun?
    Let's delete a third of all content, gotta amplify that super fun excitement.

    I swear if you Wrel lovers can get excited by the deletion of a third of the content on a map, there is no hope...

    And believe me, I'm absolutely thinking about stopping playing,
    Eight years, thousand of hours and thousands of £ i've spent in this game,
    If this was battlefield or battlefront or something I could easily drop it
    and move to something similar that has competent devs.
    But this is PS2 there is nothing like it for the massive fights (that Wrel wants to remove)
    it breaks my heart every patch with that dumb@$$ motherf**ker as lead designer ruining the game that I love.
    Seeing something that I love get torn apart, and with no reason or justification...
    Why the f**k is a rando youtuber LEAD DEVELOPER?!

    So yeah, the moment another MMOFPS comes along PS2 is f**ked, but for the time being this is it,
    The only game of its kind, nothing else to jump ship too, and we have an idiot youtuber destroying it.
  2. Marik

    Then do it better.

    Do like Wrel and start a YouTube career with PS2 as your main content. Maybe they will be recruited by RPG.

    Or start a big reddit campaign/call. So we got Russian and Chinese texts.

    Whereby they should not remove Wrel but use a different game designer. On the basis of decreasing player numbers. So they demand a subjective reshuffle on an objective basis.

    I don't know how exactly the decisions are made there, how much say the other designers have in the decisions or if it is really all Wrel's fault. Which I do not believe, for example. That he is solely to blame.
    We must not forget that under DBG there were a lot of wrong decisions and that the company management wanted to do what they did. That's why Planetside Arena came.

    Because of the map, considering that the number of players is decreasing all the time, a reduction of the map can be a good solution to still keep a full fighting experience.

    The bases are still there, so I can't talk about it being removed. They were deactivated. But they're still there. I get the feeling you don't want to understand it.

    It would be if you were playing a big Battlefield Map, but since there were only 10-20 people in the end. Instead of 64. I hope you see the problem I mean.


    Dann machen sie es doch besser.

    Machen sie wie Wrel und starten eine YouTube Karriere mit PS2 als Hauptinhalt. Vielleicht werden sie ja dann auch von RPG rekrutiert.

    Oder starten eine große reddit Kampagne/Aufruf. So haben wir russische und chinesische Texte Bekommen.

    Wobei sie Wrel nicht entfernten sollten sondern einen anderen Game Designer einsetzen. Auf Basis senkender Spielerzahlen. So fordern sie eine subjektive Umbesetzung auf Grund einer objektive Grundlage.

    Ich weiß nicht wie genau die Entscheidungen da getroffen werden, also wie Mitsprache recht die anderen Designer haben oder ob es wirklich alles allein Wrels Schuld ist. Was ich z.B. nicht glaube. Also das er allein Schuld ist.
    Wir dürfen nicht vergessen das damals unter DBG auch ne menge Fehlentscheidungen gab und das das gemacht werden sollte was die Firmenleitung! wollte. Deswegen kam auch Planetside Arena.

    Wegen der Karte, wenn man bedenkt das die Spielerzahlen immer weiter sinken, kann eine Verkleinerung der Karte eine gute Lösung sein noch immer ein gefülltes Kampferlebnis bei zu behalten.

    Die Basen sind ja noch immer da, also kann ich da nicht davon reden das sie entfernt wurde. Sie wurden deaktiviert. Aber sind noch da. Ich habe aber teilweise das Gefühl sie das nicht verstehen wollen.

    Das Wäre wenn sie eine große Battlefield Karte spielen, aber da letzten Endes nur 10-20 Leute wären. Statt 64. Ich hoffe sie erkennen so das Problem das ich meine.
  3. Demigan

    I disagree. You dont have to build them like Biolabs you can build them like the superior AMP stations, Techplants and large facilities like Quartz Ridge.

    The difference in "purpose" between meatgrinders and bases that fall just to get movemebt on the map is neglectible. However if bases are designed to fall when attacked there is little reason for attackers to show up. We can see that in the Outfit gameplay where its basically a contest who can simultaneously Ghost Cap and out-Zerg the enemy. That's not even about fighting anymore! A meatgrinder has much more to offer, especially when you change at what point people feel "progress".
    You currently have the idea that any progress equals capturing a facility, while not progressing means that the defenders are effective. That means only the attackers are allowed to progress! And any changes in favor of "progress" is basically "the defenders need to lose".
    But what if progress consisted out of achieving goals within a base? Attackers try to deactivate defenses to push farther intona base and capture it, defenders try to repair defenses and build new one's while deactivating any staging area's and fortifications the attacker uses to remain in the base. That way progress can be measured in "we got a bit further into a base" but also with "the defenders progressed and pushed the attackers farther out".

    Stalemates are the best fights. They are the most balanced and equal, without favor for either the attackers or defenders. To make people feel that progress inside these stalemates is the best way to achieve a good gameplay, especially since now you can start offering players methods to overcome this stalemate through teamplay: you cant advance as a blob? Start organizing! A rush here, a flank there, coordinate seperate assaults to push off attackers/defenders etc. This is how Renegade for example worked. You couldnt drop on top of objectives (destroying buildings was the objective), you had to stage each attack. To destroy buildings you needed to be able to reach them. To reach them you had to storm the defenders with local superiority. To storm wIth local superiority you needed to own the field, the infantry paths or somehow sneak around enemy forces without being seen which required information about their whereabouts. Each step felt like progression. The end goal was just that: the end. But to reach it you needed different steps that all felt like progress, and reaching that end goal felt so much better BECAUSE it took so many steps.
  4. Johannes Kaiser

    That is true. But most Biolab fights I have been in since they added the inside spawns has devolved into spawncamping sooner or later, which isn't interesting or engaging in any way.
    In addition, and also from personal experience: you can win Biolabs (on both sides) only in one of two ways: Either you have a really good team (means brilliant teamwork and solid individual skill to go along) or you outnumber the enemy by a substantial margin. I will admit that I currently do now know how that could be changed into a system that is a bit easier for both sides (so that, say, a 55 to 45 team can win if they put in some effort), but that would - at least in my opinion - improve on the system.
    Lastly, my comment was more a prediction into the devs intentions and abilities when it came to designing the system you described and how that would almost certainly go awry one or the other way. "Balanced bases that do not devolve into spawncamps and farmfests but stay enjoyable for the entire fight" isn't exactly high up on their track record.
    • Up x 1
  5. Demigan

    While true for some parts, its unlikely the devs would make anything close to Biolabs. Also one reason for the inside spawns was that their new spawn system does not allow easy access to spawns outside of the base you fight in, so dying in a biolab could prohibit you from spawning at a Sunderer close to the teleporter you used to get in.
    You would expect the devs to add more things like AMP stations, Techplants and other less standardized facilities rather than domed off chokepoint havens. So I wouldnt be afraid of these bases becoming any more spawncamp fests than already happens at current large bases.
  6. Liewec123

    We already have plenty of PS2 youtubers, and I don't think any of them should be devs.
    Community managers sure, but not devs.

    As for if everything is Wrel's fault, he is LEAD designer, kinda like the manager in a store,
    Yes we had some bad updates before Wrel,
    but since wrel we've seen many more updates that negatively effect the game.
    And multiple projects get started and abandoned like ASP and NSO (and Oshur)

    There have been patches containing good things,
    but they're always overshadowed by a monumentally awful thing in the same patch.
    One step forwards, five steps back.

    Like this patch we can list the good:
    Better north east warpgate placement on esamir
    Missions? (If anyone really cares about them)
    Better outfit resource costs
    Some new esf wing guns, and new thumper ammo
    Armadillo sunderer finally!
    Craftable exceptional implants (even if the cost is hilarious)

    But that is massively overshadowed by the monumentally bad:
    A third of the bases on esamir deleted, 60 becoming 43
    All biolabs removed from esamir
    Remaining esamir bases ruined with bad alterations (control points put outside)
    And we know this is Wrel because he livestreams while he ruins them.
    Annoying fight-ruining sentient giant AOE added to esamir that will intentionally bother the biggest fight.
    Central indar (most popular fight in the game) intentionally ruined.
    Forced to start in the stupid, pointless, waste-of-resources that they call "sanctuary", simply wasting time.
    Alert rewards removed
    Daily ribbons removed

    As usual the bad stuff vastly outweighs the little bit of good so the patch seriouly damages the game
    instead of making it better.

    It's getting so bad that I WANT the game to be put into maintenance mode, simply so we can stop
    Wrel from continuously hacking away at it, making it worse and worse.
  7. Marik

    2 things are definitely a matter of taste. Which they want to transfer to ALL others. Because they, like the other one, Demigan, believe that they can speak for everyone.

    1 is an objective decision based on falling player numbers that they don't want to accept? And they are still in the game. They act as if you can't even get there.

    But the scaled-down map as well as the outside points have to prove themselves more accurately in practice. Yes, we will probably see a lot of orbital strikes there, but I think a prowler with a shield could also bring a lot of strategic benefits.

    The storm... Yeah, that's a bad way to stop zergs.

    I honestly do not understand the problem with the Sanctuary. Who knows maybe it's the return of the queue?

    I personally think that the rewards suck too. Especially with the alarms. I don't see any economic background behind them at the moment.
    I think that's what the missions are for. Daily missions instead of daily tapes.


    2 Dinge sind auf jeden Fall Geschmackssache. Die sie auf ALLE anderen übertragen wollen. Weil sie, wie auch der andere, Demigan, glauben das sie für alle reden können.

    1 ist eine objektive Entscheidung auf Grund sinkender Spielerzahlen, die sie nicht akzeptierten wollen? Und die Sind noch immer im Spiel. Sie tun ja so als kommt man da gar nicht mehr hin.

    Aber die verkleinerte Karte sowie die außenliegenden Punkte müssen sich erst in der Praxis genauer beweisen. Ja, wir werden wahrscheinlich ne ganze Menge Orbital Strikes da sehen, aber ich denke mir ein Prowler mit Schild könnte da auch strategisch ne menge bringen.

    Der Sturm... Ja das ist schon eine schlechte Umsetzung um Zergs zu stoppen.

    das Problem beim Sanctuary versteh ich ehrlich gesagt nicht. Wer weiß vielleicht ist das ja die Rückkehr der Warteschlange?

    Das Belohnungen finde ich persönlich auch scheiße. Besonders bei den Alarmen. Da sehe ich zur Zeit auch keinen wirtschaftlichen Hintergrund dahinter.

    Ich glaube das dient dazu die Missionen zu machen. Tägliche Missionen statt tägliche Bänder.
  8. DarkStarAnubis

    I have lost hope in DBG/RPG a long time ago, more or less by when they decided that, since they were unable to stick to a Roadmap, they would simply stop to provide one.

    They lack a vision. A company may have a vision you like or one you dislike and then you choose. Unfortunately they do not have one and jus try things left and right leaving them unfinished.

    And they are so short-sighted they do not realize the more they start something new and leave unfinished, the less people will follow them in the next half-done update:

    Respawn mechanism,
    Esamir revamped,

    What next?
  9. MonnyMoony

    Make the game more about objectives and less about farming kills - fights might be a bit more dynamic.

    It's crazy that you can make 100s of times more certs for farming in a base than for actually capturing it. How many alerts have been lost because people have more to gain farming a biolab fight for kills than to actually push the objectives needed to win the alert?

    Reduce the 1 on 1 cert reward for kills by a factor 25 (and by factor of 50 for kills obtained using cheesy farming weapons like HESH, Banshee etc) - then up objective rewards by a factor of 50 or more (e.g. taking generators out, hacking terminals, capping bases, killing deployed sundies, taking out spawn beacons etc).

    Far too many fights are intentionally prolonged just because farming kills is too rewarding.
    • Up x 1
  10. Johannes Kaiser

    Sounds good, honestly. Easiest way to obtain the "cheese kill reward reduction" is to make infantry kills done with vehicle weapons give less XP and be done. Possible addition of scaling XP reward to damage the killed player did to the vehicle (so that you do get a solid reward if you kill someone who was an actual threat to your vehicle), but I believe that might be a bit difficult to do..
    That way vehicles going after infantry is no longer a viable farming strategy (just not worth it) but makes sense when done to support others (like thinning out the ranks of attackers runnign towards a point).
  11. Twin Suns

    Half @ssed ASP not finished.
    Half @ssed NSO not finished.
    Half @ssed Oshur not finished.

    Half @ssed seems to be the norm when it comes to DBG's actual track record.
  12. Demigan

    While making infantry kills less useful for certs might be a good thing, making base capture the primary source of rewards is just about the worst thing you could do to PS2.
    simply put, focus on base capture does this:
    - discourages defense. Why defend if it doesnt earn you something?
    - encourages things like Ghost capping, Zerging and avoiding fights. Why waste time fighting infantry if you can cap bases somewhere else? Better yet: grief and be the worst type of player imagineable to make players leave for more fun battles. Thats a good way to win! But it also means that you are actively making the game worse, rather than contributing to it.

    We've seen this early on when they created a points system, I think in relation to a server smash? World Series or something it was called. Early on defenses were the most profitable and the "tactical" capture-bases people complained. Then the base defense points were dialed down and we saw Zerging, Ghost Capping, avoiding fights and even base trading increase just to get points (you unlocked boosts and one-use camo's with it as well).
    Right now you can also see it with the Escalation update, where outfits arent encouraged to fight but to zerg enemies to death, ghost cap, make fighting them as boring or unfun as possible. Its not good for the game.

    Better idea's are to make things shared more. Its a team game right? You get barely any XP or certs for killing, reviving, kill assists, destroying vehicles etc. Instead most of the XP goes into a pot that you share with people in your vicinity. Once every X minutes this pot of XP is divided between the players who participated in filling it. So the guy repairing the MAX will get the same XP as the guy being the MAX, or the infantryman securing the flank of a tank will get the same XP as the tank and his buddies.
    Better yet, a Zerg would have to share the same XP amongst its members. So now they might win more battles, but the reward is much lower as there's more to divide it over. This encourages players to use the minimum amount of people to get the job done as the individual reward is higher.

    The biggest issue with that idea is things like how you become eligeable for a reward, just showing up shouldnt do it, but being the guy who leads the charge and dies first should not kick you out of the pool either. Its one of the reasons why I think they should use heat-maps to track what is going on in the game, and assign objectives around that which also allow you to contribute. Die in a chokepoint without doing anything useful several times? A death heat-map and a location heat-map tracked that enemies are holding the chokepoint and your attempts to storm it will allow you to get rewards. Breaking that chokepoint would also be much more valuable than the kills you could make, encouraging players to fight and win the toughest battles they are able.
    Another thing to wonder is the distance at which you earn for a pot, and who is in that. You dont want an aircraft or tank to miss out on earned XP, you also dont want people to just farm KD and still earn the rewards of their allies. That is one of the reasons why the game should recognize what is happening in an area. The game already does this in the form of the "heavy battle" circles that appear on the map.

    Regardless of the potential for people to benefit from other people's successes, the end result would be that the more effective the team is as a whole the more XP you'll earn as a whole. Encouraging players to both fight and cap bases, but not discourage enemies from fighting you.
  13. Johannes Kaiser

    But there's an easy fix for that. Same XP and loyalty/merit for defense as for offense. And suddenly they both are equally valuable. That also means that when a base is threatened it is more likely that it will be reinforced, because aside from strategic value (position and spawns) and control value (on alerts) now defending is rewarded.
  14. Demigan

    Actually not that simple.
    When is a defense reward given? This is something the devs and playerbase have struggled with since forever. In the aforementioned World Series or whatever it was called the defenders would periodically earn equal points for their defense as enemies for capturing it. Unless you were zerging the hell out of it defense was far faster to earn points. Then they nuked the time on defense earnings and offense became the best, leading to rampant zergs and few people defending anymore as it didnt earn you. Its an extremely fine balance.

    Even if you do find that balance, for what bases does it count? Large facilities take longer to capture by default, and even between those bases the difference in how easy it is to cap is immense. Most small facilities are easy to capture. So you would have to give uneven rewards depending on how easy or hard it is to attack/defend.

    More importantly: it creates different goals for players to achieve. Defenders are encouraged not to push enemies off, but to create stalemates to keep that sweet defense XP coming. Attackers are encouraged to find the least defended bases, and Zerg them or Ghost cap them where needed, again with great incentives to grief and suck the fun out of the game for the defenders. Worse yet: you have effectively created a system where fights for large facilities is a no-no until you've captured everything around it and can out-zerg the defenders. No more large battles in PS2!
  15. iller

    Normally I'd be in FAVOR of this sort of event on Indar or Amerish to get people the hell away from the usual stalemates at TI Alloys and NC Arsenal. But let's be honest, Esamir is basically only ever built for ONE BIG FIELD FIGHT, and when they happen, they're usually a lot of fun there. Why ruin that (so long as a good portion of the actual supply lines are well spread out in the field around it with Proximity player bases reinforcing the Macro level logistics of the fight?).

    We had a whole string of fights just like this last night there where even Bastions and Colossus tank columns came into play for the first time the entire day because a critical mass in the form of tight-corridor Infantry-Only base fighting on Esamir quickly spills out into the wider much deeper strategic landscape around most of those bases.

    I think the real bottom line comes down to execution of: Is this going to finally chase a Zerg OUT OF MANI BIOLAB?
    ...if it doesn't specialize in doing that, and only that, then why even f***ing Bother??
  16. Demigan

    Look my point is that this is an incredibly complex issue. There are no simple solutions, as the reward system is a very important part of the game and what it promotes.

    For example, capture points form a focal point for combat. They make sure that players find each other and will try to push through to achieve a goal even if it might not be smart from a "I wanna murder as much as possible" perspective. It encourages players to push through a chokepoint for example to reach one.

    Rewards are added incentives, they are there to tell you "this is what we want you to be doing in the game". However you have to make sure that there is always something more to pursue. You dont want players to find an optimal strategy and do that forever at the cost of others. Farming kills is one, farming base captures while avoiding combat is another.

    The capture of a base or the killing of planetmans should be just one part of the reward. The biggest rewards should come from the things that you do to get there. Break chokepoints, but also create and man a chokepoint to stall enemy advances and then push the enemy away from the chokepoint, take out extreme menace kills, deal with dangerous vehicle columns, create dangerous vehicle columns, last-minute retakes etc. Things that encourage you to play the game and seek the next challenge to overcome, or create a challenge for enemies to overcome with diminishing returns for some things so players dont stick with chokepoints forever but try to push the enemy off.
  17. iller

    Well if that's the case, then wouldn't BOTH of those factions now finally have to get in the habit of cutting the whole hex region off by going straight through Allutum and SnakeRavine? Often times this happens on its own, but ONLY when large ZergFits finally decide to pull all their guys out of the Crown area to take those areas...

    ...and when they finally do, the Pubbies camping Alloys are Always always always way too sluggish to respond in time. (at least on Connery where tactical awareness is considered some kind of witch craft only possessed by social pariahs who must be shunned, especially among Command Chat)
  18. That_One_Kane_Guy

    The inside of a Biolab looks pretty much the same no matter which continent I'm on. There are plenty of fun bases to fight at on Esamir that might get a little more exercise now which is fine by me. But I'll reserve judgement until I've played the damn patch on live instead of trying to draw conclusions from whatever the piss goes on on the PTS.

    Realistically the reduction in base numbers isn't going to matter as much as people like to imagine, it's not as if there's this great surplus of worthwhile fights going on at any given moment.
  19. NotziMad

    I don't know, call me nostalgic, and as much as I disagree with how you play and how you expect others to play, and also as much I disagree with so many things you say Liewec, I also acknowledge yours and other's right (so to speak, cause it isn't a democracy, it's a video game ffs) to enjoy the game as you want to.

    We all have that right. We should ALL have that right.


    The only issue I really have is how each of the two category of players (those who want to win, and those who just want to grind) plays PREVENTS the other category from doing so :

    1. If too many players ignore the Alert, you can't possibly win the alert.

    2. If too many player want to win the Alert, they cut off the Biolab or the Crown / Ti Alloys and kill the fight. They kill the sundy and kill the fight etc etc etc etc

    And there's two issues within that issue :


    More often than not, it's a one way street ; grinders can grind anywhere, they can grind in a cut off base, they don't "need" as many requirements to enjoy themeselves, if the biolab gets cut off, yes the fight dies, but they'll find another, no problem at all, a fight's a fight.

    However objective players NEED the support of their faction, they NEED that the other 2 factions fight each other, they NEED to play smart to win, they need to think about what they do, I won't list everything they need, but the point is

    ->>>>>> grinders very often prevent objective players from enjoying themselves while objective players rarely prevent grinders from enjoying themselves.

    That isn't fair.


    It wasn't always like this, it's more or less only been like this, or become like this since SOE became DBG.

    A few years ago, BOTH category of players cohabitated (more or less) happily in the game. You could ignore the objecrives, you could play the objectives, whatever, but most plaers weren't unhappy and frustrated as they are today.

    And I think the real question we should be asking is, "why is that"?

    Because understanding this would go a long way to understanding how to make things better for everyone today. Because many of the objectives and goals we wish for the game WERE ALREADY ACHIEVED YEARS GO.
  20. Johannes Kaiser

    Simple: Give defender XP once the bar is completely filled by your faction, effectively ending the tracked fight. Just as it is for attackers. So at that point the systems are equal If this still doesn't work out as intended, it can be adjusted as needed. My recommendation for the first step there (should it be needed) is one tick of "point capture" XP every two minutes, as long as there is an enemy presence of at least 40% base population there (and those 40% have to be three or more, so air venturing over the base doesn't count). Means you do get a periodic reward for keeping them off the cap if there are enough enemies there to count as a threat.

Share This Page