What the hell is wrong with those players who keep fighting in the biolab even when the cont lock alert is going on ??? 250 cert and 300 iso mean nothing to them, freaking seriously ??? Most of the pop of NC & TR on Connery just keep at each other at the east side of the map on Amerish where the biolab links were, and that's when VS has over 60+% territory of Amerish. The NC & TR don't seem to care or know capping territory would help to lock the cont. I tried to help to cap Auraxis Firearm corp from the VS and some tried to cap Wokuk Amp station from the VS, and for 90 min, those 2 cap didn't move 1 bit because NC & TR were "having their fun in the biolab", so there weren't enough pop to help at all. If shoot and kill is what PS2 is going to be, there are many titles out there can do that. What's the selling point for PS2, just a bigger version of those ???
Why is it that so many don't understand that Biolabs are the thing that represents PS2 the most? Capturing continents is less about tactics and strategy and more about throwing the most bodies at something and making the fight as unfair for the opposition as possible. On top of that the gains are far less permanent compared to statistics that are attached to your character. There's no way to boast "my KD is to hell but I captured the flag and won us the game" in PS2, so players mostly measure their characters by the KD. In come Biolabs. These offer the best bang for your buck. They offer the large-scale fights that PS2 is supposed to be centered about. They are some of the most evenly matched fights, with it being difficult for both teams to get the others away from the biolab, they take the most right-here tactics rather than looking at a map and saying "let's all go there boys". For a large part they also eliminate many of the imbalances the game has. Attackers are virtually guaranteed to have vehicle and air superiority, but those mean a lot less against Biolab entrenched infantry. Most people seem to enjoy the cover-to-cover attacks and Biolabs offer those for most important ranges and best of all players can simply work on their stats rather than worry about getting blown to bits by a tank or not getting support from your allies. Is it any wonder everyone loves to fight at biolabs? Everyone, including the VS? If you want to remedy this you have to solve the core of the problem, rather than insult everyone who enjoys a good biolab romp. Ask yourself why they are at Biolabs and not somewhere else, and see if you can help create those conditions in other area's of the game. They don't like the way infantry has almost no solid way to deal with vehicles and aircraft? Add them! From non-lethal opaque vision-obscuring screens like those they added to PSA instead of PS2 to PSA's deployable shields instead of PS2's sorry excuse to semi-lethal options that nerf opponents (a small concussion effect on aircraft can potentially be lethal) to resource-costing lethal options. Players think a permanent record is more important than winning a continent? Add prominently shown stats and objectives that encourage players to go through all the steps you need to capture a continent. Vehicles destroyed, secondary objectives completed (like Sunderer destruction, protecting overloaded generators etc), fights won with inferior equipment (a long-range kill with a CQC weapon versus a long-range weapon for example) etc. Those secondary objectives could be player-created, such as the Routerpad which was intended to be a Medic deployable micro-spawn for players within a certain distance, or by adding high-powered defenses to bases that can be deactivated so attackers are more focused on slowly degrading the defenses before capturing while the defenders keep repairing it, giving players more a feel of progression during even "stale" (read: balanced) battles. There are plenty of options that don't include insulting everyone in Biolabs, explore those.
Biolabs represent very well a fundamental design failure in PS2. It has nothing to do with the players, which quite naturally want to "have fun" as you said. You described very well a Biolab: it is a closed and confined environment with fixed entry points (1xrespawn, 3xteleports, 2xStairways of Death). The closest thing to a "level map" of so many multiplayer games. So, why players gravitate around Biolabs like moths toward the flame? Maybe because the rest of the continent is boring, all other bases have more holes than Swiss cheese, spawn points can be bombarded by tanks half a mile away, there are garages for Sunderers everywhere and so on? Fix the problem (the rest of the continent) and not the blame (the Biolabs).
I totally disagree with this. In a few players fight, skill could alter outcome, but in large scale, pop means a lot in capture / defend outpost. Deciding when and how to move how many troops to fight at where is a different kind of skill rather than mindless camping spawn room in biolab. We had 1 outpost got camped by vehicles in Indar, and I moved an AMS from another outpost behind the front line and put it right behind the vehicles camping the outpost and others saw it and used it to help to destroy the camping vehicles. That's more than enough to deal with vehicles from infantry (did had a little help from other vehicles). It's not possible and not right for infantry to be able to stand toe-to-toe with vehicles, and a little thinking is needed, but sadly most people just want to be mindless zerg because using the muscles inside their head is harder than holding the mouse.
Actualy we need to 'fix' the playerbase. To do this we need to (and by we, i mean the developers) reach out to an audience of combined arms players, not infantry only players who dont understand how planetside works. When one side of a 3-sided coin is constantly catered for, its not going to be long before only that side is at the dinner table. EDIT: In other words, the playerbase is too lopsided.
Disagreeing does not magically make it true. The go-to "strategy" of 95% of the leaders including the outfits will simply throw bodies at a problem. This is because the lack of solid team-oriented information distribution methods. Voice chat is great and all but only 1 out of 48 players can speak at a time and relay orders or info while the amount of easy-access contextual orders is limited to waypoints. In the meantime there are a hundred small (!) Stragetic options during biolab fights to try and advance. But its a biolab fight, so it is basically an uphill battle both ways. Any ground you need to gain requires more effort for the attacker than defender. Ok and why SHOULD infantry be further incapable of dealing with vehicles? Because you think it without considering what this does for the overall gameplay experience the players have? Because you, at one point in your PS2 carreer, could spawn behind clueless vehicles and destroy them? That is all the reason to have weak infantry? And what is more sad is all the vehicle players and fake commanders who think they know something and are basically a huge reason everything is so wrong. If we had en-mass rcognized the lacking tools and didnt think that two players in the same room with a squad icon was equal to teamwork then we would have gotten the tools and mechanics for actual "we will simultaneously complement each other" playstyles. Are you seriously saying that its the player's fault? It is human nature to make things efficient for them no matter how bored they get from it. This is why Skinner Boxes can exist and players will remove the fun out of the game if it is more efficient destroying the game for themselves and others. So rather than blame the players for doing the human thing and asking them to go against their nature, the game should naturally offer what the game is about. You want combined arms in a game where and infantryman and tank are mostly fighting segregated from one other and when they arent lack any decent tools to actually support one another? Well why dont you add the missing ingredients, rather than go through a route asking "combined arms" people to do... what? You didnt mention? The point is that for both combined arms and teamwork to be there in the quantities you want you first need to meet the minimum requirements for teamwork and combined arms. IE putting them together nets you a significant enough advantage and the game should naturally let these things evolve during the playsession, rather than players needing to build their own military-grade communications network of command staff and soldiers to get information around to everyone in a useable fashion for all involved. That is no joke, with the current tools that is what would be required at minimum to get anywhere near the level of cooperation and combined arms most players would be shooting for... you know, basic combined arms and teamwork...
People don't understand how far planning will go. say you have 100 people on each side. A team dedicates 50 of those players to a single base, to overwhelm the defenders. What do you do? How can you beat that? Don't be the idiot that stays at the base, or the other idiot that sends 50 people to counter them. Zergers are looking for an easy fight, a farm. Instead, using strategy, send the 50 on a different lattice, to take another set of bases. The Zergers will leave to come fight you, and at that time, you go back and retake the bases you were taking with 10 of your 50. Its 40 v 40-ish, because some zergers won't leave the zerg, so now you keep them at bay while the other team fights the 10-ish off. Even if the zerg doesn't turn around to stop you, you are taking all of their bases at the same time they are taking yours. They take 1, you take 1. They take another, you take another. The cycle repeats until someone cuts you off, but if you have a long sliver of a lattice that got cut off that you are working off, just spawn continually spawn Sundererers and make sure you have spawn points back to your other base. Then you can cut them off. People just never play strategically. Sure, you can be easy and throw bodies at people, or you can play it smart with your own zergling squad, or even just one or two full squads. The whole zerg probably won't leave to stop you, so you will overtake those bases and cut off their territory. They usually come back to stop you after that, but you just gotta buy time.
Nope, are you honestly going to claim you attempted to understand my post? Sigh....let me repeat myself (why do i have to do this so much for you?) When one side of a 3-sided coin is constantly catered for, its not going to be long before only that side is at the dinner table. When one side of a 3-sided coin is constantly catered for, its not going to be long before only that side is at the dinner table. I put it in twice just to make sure you saw it.
Would you allow a small piece of advice? Wait before pressing reply, let it settle for a while. This is twice now youve jumped to an insanely wild conclusion thats is completely different to the point my post was making. Both times im sure with a little restraint on the reply key youd have realised youd mis-understood. And quit with the ...........s all over the place. Youre not all knowing and your opinion isnt gospel, please reign your ego in just a little bit.
I read that, but that has nothing to do with what you said before about combined arms and "fixing" the playerbase. Hence it is in a different paragraph rather than a different alinea. So unless you now claim that it was an error that send the wrong message my own message stands.
Again with the instant reply, sigh. You are wrong Demi, i was not saying that. Now take a deep breath and read the following: The developers have made the mistake of only catering to the cry-hard players. The 'vehicles are evil' players. The 'aircraft must be removed from the game by direct infantry counters' people. Because of this we are now left with a much larger percentage of this type of player than we had before. This type of player still believes (falsely) that vehicle, be it air or ground, are 'ruining' their game, are too cowardly to actualy try the vehicle side of the game, and therefore flock to the nearest place where they can effectively ignore those 'problems' a Bio Lab. This is why, imo of course, Bio Labs are the 'H1Z1 of PS2', the question asked by the OP. I am completely unwilling to explain that further, this is for the second time far beyond what i should have to have done. Now take another deep breath, and re-read it, make sure you understand it before aggresively dis-approving of something i never even said.
Maybe take your own advice? You started with players needing to be fixed and combined arms players needing to be consulted. That was what I mainly reacted too. You point out that that wasnt what you meant, you apparently only meant the later paragraphs. The "fix players" was about "fix specific cry-baby players", but that was not apparent from the initial post when I reacted to it. I explain to you why I came to that conclusion, telling you that if there was a mistake in the message that it was in the way it was written. You again confirm that you didnt mean that. That is fine, but there is no reason to blame that on me.
The way how Demigan thinks probably represent many of the zerging infantry players, and it is probably 1 of the reasons why both PS2 is where it is today. My statements may not be magically true, but this statement of yours is "factually" false. Biolab fight is not "magically" different than any other bases, it only infantry that camp other infantry. With the way PS2 current design is, it's only who's there 1st to camp the enemy, and who can throw more bodies (or guns). Outdoor fight in open field combine vehicles with infantry offer a lot more varieties and "a different kind of fun". This pass Saturday night, DrMoneyPants was leading the NC probably against The Wild Cats of VS in armored battle north of Lowland area in Indar for almost an hour, and it was a nice experience. There are many tactics and survival tips in vehicle fight as much as infantry, and I see that's more fun than biolab infantry only fight which could eventually comes down to camp the spawn tube just like any other bases. There are 2 games I ever played that has potential in real large scale war-like environment (Planetside and Battleground Europe: WW2 Online) but in my opinion both failed in the same issue, coordinating large scale player base. Both games don't have good tools to enhance coordination amount different groups of players, squad or platoon. Battleground Europe has high command structures where real players form commanding core to place attack order like where to attack and how the troops placement is before each campaign starts which is the only 1 thing better than Planetside, but that's about it. Sort of piggy pack on Trigga's point, I think the most important change is both the players and the game developers mind set. Instead of playing a bigger scale counter strike where individual kills matters, objective matters and there should be some kind of objective points where leaders assign cap / hold objective in areas (like a hill top defense to stall enemy). Whoever achieve more object goal should be shown on top of players list, not just individual K/D. Also, what's the point to spend the resources to make all these open world and vehicles but end up only infantry only fight like H1Z1 in the biolab ? That's just waste of development resource. What is the value of Planetside that is different from other games ? Where is the true combine arm with coordination amount players to archive goals or objectives instead of mindless zerging like a bigger scale Counter strike ? What is the next level of shooting games that combines strategy and tactic with shooting ? All the shooting games since Counter Strike in 97, I have only see different versions of it. Planetside has the potential to be the next level, but sadly it's just bigger scale only so far. Without mind set change, it's not going to happen.
Yes, asking for viable command structures and asking for fun gameplay is definitely what landed us to this mess. Really! I can believe every word you say! Factually in quotes? And yes Biolabs are very different from all the rest of the game. They shelter infantry from both tanks and aircraft and the setup prevents both attackers and defenders from dislodging their opponents from the base. This is a relatively unique situation that most bases do not offer. Also how can you claim that Biolabs aren't different from other bases if your whole premise is that Biolabs are the bane of PS2's existance? They have to be different to attract these players, that's the whole point you are making. Also why is it "only" infantry that camp other infantry? How do they camp exactly? It's camping if they just stick to one area and defend it. But much of a Biolab is first digging in, then looking for a way to attack the enemy. Since you despise biolab fights and obviously haven't played them a lot you missed that point. As for how I am representing zerging infantry, I think that about 30% of my time is spend in vehicles which for most players in the game is a very high %. I also do very well in vehicles overall, such as being able to use the pre-CAI HE Lightning gun against enemy vehicles at the same proficiency as most other players would use the AP gun, at the time the HE gun was considered an almost automatic loss in vehicle combat. Maybe you've also missed my idea's for improving vehicles, such as co-ax guns, requests to get abilities that only the top-gun can activate, using all the unused buttons on vehicles to fire off secondary and tertiary weapon systems as well as additional abilities. But ofcourse, I'm just a zerging infantryplayer because you said it and therefore I magically am one right? There are some nice experiences. That does not equate to all vehicle on infantry experiences being nice. Most of those experiences aren't nice, and can't be made nice very easily. That is the point I'm making. Also "was probably leading against the wild cats"? You didn't know? Are you just making this up as you go along? Spoken like a true biased player. Good job! You only care about vehicle fights. Now I love myself a good vehicle fight, but I also love infantry fights. On top of that I have a love for allowing both groups to mingle and support each other, rather than it being a lobsided engagement. Vehicles shouldn't be rewarded with too much power simply because someone walked up to a terminal and used a resource that nobody earns but just gets every minute. An easy solution is for nanites to destroy nanites, and give infantry nanite-costing weaponry to fight vehicles on equal footing but different mechanics at the way their weapons cost and are used. No crap sherlock! So when I propose to add a better command structure why are you so hard against me? Simply because I have an argument to make in favor of Biolabs? Absolutely screw leaders. They have no real place in PS2's teamplay until we have teamplay for the basic players. Teamplay is something to be encouraged. It does not begin with one player telling you what to do, teamplay begins with two players meeting up and being able and willing to work together and complement each other. Standing in the same hallway and shooting at the same target in competition who can kill him first is not teamplay. Leadership should naturally roll out from there. You don't get a (good) leadership because someone is top of the squad, no you find someone you can work together with enough to form a squad and start adding like-minded players. Then a leader becomes necessary as the group grows and you naturally get leadership that people would be willing to listen too. Yes, meaning we need to create encouragements to actually make the rest of the game fun. If infantry vs vehicle fights were fun to begin with and combined arms was more than the ghost it is now then people wouldn't need to flock to biolabs in the first place for a solid gameplay experience. Large scale combat. That's the value of PS2. Even smaller battles usually have more players in them than most lobby-games offer. Also you ask for true combined arms, but don't want infantry to be any good against vehicles? If you can't provide a fun and good experience for the infantry players that are going along with the tanks then combined arms of infantry and tanks is off the table. Mind set is governed by the game you play. You can't say all games are played the same this way. I already gave you some idea's on how to improve the gameplay and "write angrily on forums that they should change their mindset and listen to 'good' players" is not the way forwards. Reward good behaviour in the game, add mechanics that allow players to express the behaviours you want instead of asking players to make due with an incomplete system that barely has 2 ways infantry and vehicles can support each other effectively.
Ugh..... hate those. Tried to help TR on Connery take one from the NC, but it devolved into an endless TDM with NC camping around our teleporter. Some guy shouted to fall back to warpgate, but in reality you need to fall back to the surrounding bases, wait for the defenders to trickle out, attack the shield gens and the SCU, and THEN start capping. Oh wait, people want an endless farm, nvm. (this was Amerish around Orntha biolab I think. Big fight going on at The Ascent, but I wanted to take some territory away from DiGa because they were zerging us.)
Im honestly concerned that you would twist something so much in a effort to be 'right'. You came here with the aggression, not me, you came with the sarcy and accusing 'your wrong and heres why' attitude, not me. Dont try and turn this into my hangup. The 'im a victim here' sentence at the end garners no sympathy from me.
There's no twisting involved. Just read everything from my second reply to you again with an open mind.
biolab is only 1 part of PS2. PS2 is a combined-arm game including infantry, ground & air vehicles, but some seems not understand how to play this game with such huge varieties in one. Players like you probably will never see any tactics and strategy how to move pop around, but rather just dump the mindless zerg to overwhelm the enemy is your only tactic. There's a way to put objective points rather than K/D. Like a squad is assigned to certain goal, like defend an area, a hill top to stall enemy attack. They would receive more objective points if they can prevent more enemy to capture the area. If players don't want to explore other options than just K/D, that's what we are all getting. For those who suppose PS2 should not include vehicles or tactic mind game play would like put themselves in a cocoon and mind their own business without having to work and think in a large scale combined-arm game, then I see the current biolab is where they belong. For those who have absolute no clue they should pull vehicles in another location to counter vehicle camping would say this. Many people know how to do this, but some can't seem to understand such simple method to counter vehicle camping. Also, there are usually some people flying around, I rarely hear any SL / PL call in the command voice comm for help, again most players don't seem to use voice comm much. What you mention probably represents those who only play infantry or either don't know or dislike vehicles gameplay. Any good platoon leaders that I played with NC or VS on Connery always want to cap the 3 surrounding bases to finish off the biolab fight to move the pop away from that "pop sink hole". The mindless zerg probably want to stay, but those have brains know to get away. It may be possible, but I just don't see this is needed. There's already a solution, another vehicle, but some may not see that as a virable option. That's right, add more stat, so we can all pad more stat... biolab is the biggest "pop sink hole" during cont lock alert. Anyone who looks at the map can see it. It takes away much needed pop to cap bases, so it's a very obvious reason why factions lose cont lock. I don't see point it out is wrong 1 bit. Which direction the game goes in mostly in the hands of developers, but players has a lot to "complaint" about they want from a game, so players have to take a significant portion of responsibilities. It's human nature to take the easy way out rather than solving the problem or learning to be proficient, and complaint it's not their problem but the tools. It's easier to just sit in biolab and forget about everything else. In your opinion, this game should be about infantry centric fight, like in the biolab to be mindless zerg... ? By the way, it's probably the players that you represent thinks the biolab has more tactic game play than combined-arm game with much larger player base. I see no separation between infantry and vehicle combat in PS2. Players like sit in biolab for infantry only fight and want to forget about vehicle probably have perception they are separated. Voice comm is a very good tool to work together, at least it's good enough for a platoon. PS2 probably lacks better or more user interface tools for different platoons to coordinate together, but voice comm isn't a bad tool. Many times I tried NC voice comm on Connery, but often there's absolute silence. Earlier this year, there was a "pro-claimed" drunk dude just yells whenever anyone talks in NC command voice comm. That's just 1 way how players "ruin the game". The things that are often missing are good coordination skill, leadership, and look at the map, but that doesn't happen often. What often happen is players like to blame the tool is missing and also missing the mentality to find ways to work together, to solve problem. It's just a game, so for them it's the game's problem. The biolab is different, but not much different. It usually starts wtih who's there 1st to cap all the points and wait for the enemy to try to cap it back, and it usually ends up with which faction has more pop to push the other out. Not much different than any other bases, but if the fight is even when the cont lock alert it's going on, those who goes in hardly come out until the cont lock alert is over. Whoever looks at the map should see this. It's not the bane of PS2 existance, but reason why faction lose cont lock alert, and fighting there endlessly is just like mindless zerg only. I don't see that should be "the thing that represents PS2 the most". No, that's the point you try to make. It is you don't see how biolab fight is similar to other bases, go there first and sit and wait for the enemy to cap it back, so it's not different in the fight or tactic. That is exactly "stick to one area and defend it". If that's not your understand of camping, so what's your understand of camping ? You missed my point why the biolab is a problem when it comes to cont lock alert. No, you are wrong. If you would like to twist my point, let me try to make it straight again. I see you completely don't know what I play. I play 90% infantry, heavy assault mostly, not much vehicles, and most of my cert points is in infantry so far. However, when it comes to cont lock alert, I see biolab is the reason faction lose the alert, and I don't sit in the biolab during the alert. I go out to cap / def other bases, and I look at the map from time to time to see where I need to help. You and me just like everyone else who can walk up to the terminal and pull a vehicle. You can't kill a vehicle using infantry, so pull a vehicle when you have enough nanite. It may be possible to add in game allowing infantry to stand toe-to-toe to a vehicle, but I just don't see it is needed. Because there is no one (commanding officer) there to watch over the map and decide where to move the pop around. Command structure is the best way for "someone" to watch the map and help the faction to try to win cont lock alerts. Mutual cooperation amount players would only work in very limited group where players know others well. In the situation of PS2 where many players come and go, systematic leadership is vitual to make decisions and provide guidance. I don't know what happened in the past and why you so hate leadership in PS2, but I don't see what you mention would work at all in large group without leadership. If anyone insist infantry can't go toe-to-toe against vehicle is not fun, and not wanting to pull a vehicle to against vehicle, nor prevent vehicles of your faction being blown by infantry with C4 / mine, I think combined-arm is definitely off the table for them. Like I mentioned above, I don't see how infantry can't go toe-to-toe is a problem, you can pull a vehicle or ask for help. Mind set shapes how we play the game, and we should ask for what we believe is best design for the game, not to be limited by its design. Until this day, I haven't seen any "complete system" for any video games. PS2's system is not perfect, but it's not all that bad to just talk on voice comm and coordinate with others. It's always the man who make the difference not the machine. Machine has always need input from human so far, and the only "complete system" is probably Skynet in the movie of Terminator that doesn't exist. Are you trying to tell me you are a "good" player, so I should listen to you ? I see your ideas are quite the opposite to mine, so they aren't any "good" to me.
