[Suggestion] Fixing "redeployside" (+Harasser Footage)

Hi ho, in the last days i came up with a idea how it could be able to fix "redeployside".

Redeployside is the "strategy" of just spawning with 90+ people on a location, crash them all (because they are maby 20 or 40+) and just redeploy to another 20+ locaton wher you outnomber your enemy everytime. Most times they dont come up with a real fight, and if you done a good fight in a biolab and on 1 minute timer, there just spawn in 90 ppl crashing your position this is just not feeling good.

On the other hand crashing around with a public platoon is boring after some days or weeks... no matter how long but it is only one strategy, and because with 90+ ppl you outnumber well trained outfits (like gamez clan ;-)) so hard, that you make every nice and good strategy useless.

So here are the pillars of my idea:

Implement a community deploy timer: Meaning that every person adds like 10 seconds to the community spawn timer wich runs parallell to the normal one. This way on a particular position in one minute there can only spawn 6 "new" people.

On your last spawn point you should have no "community timer" (or even in the whole area where you spawned)

The community timer counts only on bases direct on the front, on the other bases you have just the "normal" deploy timer.

Also vehicle should get this community timer, like in a galaxy 20 seconds so you can still spawn in but you can not warp around squads this way. (but still if you forgot somebody on the warpgate he can spawn in, so the squad doesnt need to wait on him)

This also forces people to put up more than one sunderer on a special spawn location.



This system, or lets say a system like this would just improve the gameplay a lot.

My idea is probably not the final version how it should come into the game. In my Video here i go a little bit deeper on this topic and you can see some harasser gameplay for enetertanment ;-).
On the Video i move on the topics "spawn beacon" and "Travel mode" etc.... but i dont like to write them all down right now.

So enjoy it, greetings MrBasher.

It's a valid strategy, what's next? huge invisible walls than only let you enter a hex if you are on even numbers with the enemy?

Overwhelming strategies are part of the war, you couldn't just go and ask the Germans to stop using the blitzkrieg because it felt unfair.

I have always agreed with that, but that's also my point as to why we can't let such huge quantities in mass move around the map through the air as it were. Another player uses the argument "the dead do not fight" as some sort of balancing justification but the real problem is what they do when they they sudenly stop being dead and all manifest in one location that, through either intention or folly, very few of their allies were prepared to defend. People being ethereal for less than a minute at a time, at least only until a spawn in the same base or a nearby allied base opens up may create what could count as valid engagements; but, it's not strategic.

If the attackers have actually established a good sturdy perimeter against the enemy fighting back in, what good does it serve them if the defenders who were previously in the middle of nowehere can all counter-zerg from within the local spawn room at the drop of a hat? That just promotes active spawn camping en masse. SCUs offer the means of cutting off this sudden influx of unrelated combatants but not enough bases actually have those yet, and the implementation (and destruction) of them is often considered a cheap tactic that ruins fights. Additionally, not many bases have SCUs implemented.

One or more of the following considerations is the core problem:

1. A massive amount of people can spawn on one location far away on the map ...
2. ... within relatively few seconds of each other, for all practical purposes at the same time ...
3. ... after having not been in existence for only a few short seconds ...
4. ... denying enemy the chance to deter, delay, or completely reverse their movement (combat denial).

This is a game, not war. Dumbo.

i don't get it

You're right. Overwhelming force is a legitimate strategy. But plenty of people feel that in it's current form, it's a strategy that requires very little work.
Want to overwhelm a point across the map? Pull some gals and work for it.

+1
All you have to do is force people to actually use logistics/vehicles to get to a base to re-secure it. Let each empire have 1 "instant action" spawn point for the solo, casual, and lazy players. Allow us outfits that do more than run random squads/platoons bring some strategy/tactics into this game. Outfits will dedicate themselves to either being offensive, or defensive in nature. Offensive outfits will go out attacking, defensive will more than likely fly around in gals/ESF/Lib/Valkyrie squads trying to re-secure hacked bases.

One thing that might be needed to make this work is a longer timer on base captures. But who cares about a longer timer as long as it brings meaningful fights that require more than 10 second redeploy timers to save a base on the other side of the cont.

This is an easy fix, it worked right in Planetside 1, no reason it can't work in Planetside 2.

I have an idea as well that might fit with your concept, the idea is to limit the amount of people that can spawn into a base to a total of 24, while in larger bases like tech, bio, and amps would be 48. This is limiting yes but the numbers would go up depending if there are Sunderers or a galaxy near by. Sunderers and Galaxies would add the amount of people that can spawn in the area by say 12+ or less. Its sort of like how in the game of Starcraft, the only way Zergs could 'zerg' is by simply fielding more Overlords which is a unit that adds to your spawn counter that allows you to spawn in more units.

Such an implementation would add to the importance of units such as sunderers and galaxies when it comes to combating, pushing at a base, and so forth. Fielding more would allow you to spawn more but also make it so that it can actually cripple an assault, or effectively push them back when all of these vehicles are deposed of.

To quote myself from a couple of other threads, here's some ideas to help redeployside that I've previously come up with:

While I don't personally think this a bad idea on the surface, I can see people having a problem with this. The more casual players wouldn't like the random aspect of not getting to spawn at a base because a couple of sunderers just got blown up, even though they just died at the base.
There may be a way to make it work, but it would need some tweaking, and I'm personally not sure what would need to be done.

An easier, more natural way to do this is to make it so that every spawning facility (bases, Sunderers, etc.) has a resource that is used to respawn a soldier, say regenerating nanites.

A certain amount of resources are used to spawn a new player, and the resources regenerate at some rate. Perhaps special modules can be slotted to a Sunderer to increase the recovery rate or the maximum pool size, as well as having new infrastructure at bases that affect the pool size and recovery rate (with larger bases having a higher base recovery rate than smaller bases). Picture big tanks of nanites that can be destroyed or big nanite generators.

Respawn facilities would display the time required to spawn on dead players respawn screen based on the regeneration rate and the current number of people queued to spawn there to help players choose where to spawn.

This would mean that a combat force will require a number of Sunderers proportional to its size in order to maintain the same logistics rather than infinitely scaling from a single spawn point. This would also help tie into the upcoming ANT system by being able to deliver more nanites to facilities to keep spawning going.

I feel like ANTs could fix so many issues if implemented correctly.

Overly complicated fix to a rather simple problem

For game purposes, the problem with this strategy is that it has no interesting counterplay.

You can't prevent an opposing force from spawning in. Nothing you can do to stop them. You could have set up the best perimeter chock full of MBTs in hull-down positions and Skyguards with overlapping fields of fire... and poof there's the enemy inside your perimeter.

Furthermore redeployside reduces strategic depth. Essentially distance doesn't matter. You could be fighting on the Western side of Indar and then all of a sudden an enemy force that was working on a Biolab on the Eastern side of Indar is fighting you in about 10 seconds. Redeployside eliminates strategic feints or flanking because the enemy can be here or there instantly.

To improve PS2, both the above issues need to be addressed. First, the attacking team (and defending team) should have some way to prevent enemy reinforcements from spawning in, or at least delay them significantly. This could be a finite amount of spawn tickets per base/Sunderer, a spawn relay station, or just like PS1 spawn tubes.

Second, spawning across long distances should carry a nanite cost based on distance that is deducted from each soldier's nanite pool. The first effect of this change would be that soldiers would have to "save up" to respawn long distances, sort of like a reserve squad. The second effect would be that soldiers could not quickly respawn from place to place... probably only one long-distance spawn every 5 minutes or so. The third effect would be that soldiers who just spawned in from far away would be "weak" due to a personal nanite shortage... this would mean that they wouldn't have access to MAXes, C4, grenades, or vehicles.

These changes would impose a cost on redeployside while keeping it as an emergency option. But the overall goal is to encourage people to use all sorts of transports instead of relying on the "Del" key.

The germans needet to "organize" the blizkrieg. They needet fuel, they needet to know how and where they can travel.
The war endet, as the early russian winter stopet there attack.

If the germans could have spawned there soldier over moscow, they would have won.

So YES it is a valid strategy, but i say you need to do your HOMEWORK if you want to perform this.
--> Organizing the transport, get the people in there --> Get to the location save --> Form a "bridgehead" where your people can continue the attack (to stay on WW2, the forming of the bridgehad of the USA is called "D-Day" and it WAS NOT EASY! It would have been much easyer if the amaricans just flew with one plane above germany and this one plane could drop endless amounds of people....))

So you can still crash a Biolab with 90+ people, but you need ~8 galaxys for this, + gathering of people... (And as soon as they dropped at the biolab they have NO community timer in "my system")

Sry for that, i know i present it not the easyest possible way.

While I think that redeploying on different zones needs to be adjusted (resource cost or something), I don't think there is anything wrong with current state of redeploying on the same sunderer. If you get zerged, you get zerged. It's the reason why planetside is good- it's dynamic,chaotic and player controlled.

Instead, I think there should be something to promote competitive playing, like squad vs squad zones or small platoon vs platoon continents. Kinda like the separate game mode.The only problem with this is drop of players in actual continents so it needs to be regulated some way (ie. only one platoon vs platoon at the time).

It's not a valid strat... it's a terrible abuse of game mechanics to ruin ANY sense of actual strategy and deployment!

Overwhelming strats should be done with in game assets like GALAXIES and Sunderers!

Redeploy points to active fights are needed to help your lone wolf, unorganized players get around. Organized play whould have SERIOUS limitations on using it though.

I think the ressource system would even better work as my "community timer", or at least it is easyer to implement and easyer to understand ^^.

Someone made a good suggestion to make contested bases neutral, thus making redeploying to contested fights impossible.

The way it was explained was that any base between two factions via lattice was white and neutral, nobody could spawn at it unless they controlled the SCU (if it had one). People would need to get to the fight by physically traveling there from the nearest base. The benefits of this would be an increased amount of fights on the terrain between bases, less redeploy smashes (but potentially more Gal-drops, though those can be fought off and potentially nerfed if need be), and a bit more strategy. Defenders would still have an advantage just because the entire force that was defeated at the last base has been spawning at the next base in lattice for the whole of the previous fight and have time to set up sundies and the like. Because many major bases that are design reliant on spawn room location have SCUs, like Amp and Tech plants, they would stay owned by the defending faction just as they do now without any change.

Flashes are cheap enough (1 minute Nanite generation) that this is totally reasonable.

Once you're in the battle region, you can use all local available spawns. But you should only be able to redeploy to LOCKED bases (enemy on cap point couldn't capture) and then let you spawn at ANY base. Reinforcements needed would just be suggestions to get you close to areas help needed, but you could click on ANY base that the cap point is locked.

That would mean to spawn on the front line base, you'd have to start a cap on their linked base, as that locks attack down that lattice lane.

I think it would be easier to understand, and bring some of the scale back to PS2, and make control of land between fights more important again.

I think transports are Boring, so you need a system with as few transports as possible but with a system so you get not instantspawned by a full platoon, without any way to prevent that...