I've never heard anyone defend 'Redeployside' so why do you continue to let this kill the game?

More often than not I find my play sessions ending in an Alt-F4 ragequit, usually precipitated by us securing a base only to be instantly steamrolled by a hundred players who magically appeared out of nowhere. We then are expected to somehow fight 150+ people who have packed themselves inside a room the size of my house and are neigh-unkillable. So we lose the assault. Then we're forced back to our previous base, and suddenly the base we just lost is churning out dozens and dozens of tanks, or even better, we find that there's already 48+ players packed inside one building in our own base and are flipping the point already. There is zero effective way to win anything here unless we hope that the enemy gets bored and attacks somewhere else, or we abuse Redeploy 'meta' to counter them.

So then we have 250+ players fighting over four buildings, and it's a giant explosive-spamming ****show, where enemies magically pop our of thin air to shoot me in the back, and we all pile up on opposite sides of a completely indestructible wall and throw bodies through a doorway.

And that's Planetside 2. That's all this game ever is anymore.

I've never heard anyone seriously defend the redeploy abuse that allows hundreds and hundreds of players to instantly appear in a base and effortlessly overwhelm attackers. WHY IS THIS STILL PART OF THE GAME?

At the very least, fix it so you cannot spawn at any base that has a single contested point unless you died in that region! Jesus, do something.

If they wanted fights..there would be less spawn rooms, less places to pull vehicles and redeploy would only move you to major facilities. But the forces that be don't fights they want farms, because farms make e-peens.

And of course they would nerf C-4 because suddenly sundiess would need to be protected.

Short answer:

They don't care at this point or don't have enough people to care about it.

You must a bit hard of hearing (seeing, as per Internet). I have seen words put forth in defense of the theories and functionality approaching redeployside on these forums before. I do not necessarily agree with all of the opinions put forward about every facet of tactic, but I do not think blindly ignoring their precedence makes for a credible argument. I strongly believe I've seen you in threads about the topic before too so I believe you know its proponents exist and can be vocal.

Since I do not wish my posts to be considered unconstructive, I will instead propose something that might assist your argument. I just came up with this off the top of my head so don't put too much stock into it.

The Matrix Disruption Module, a Sunderer defense module. It permits deployment but interferes with local spawning and does not offer access to an Equipment panel when deployed. The module disrupts long distance enemy spawning into both the local spawn room and onto local S-AMS units. It has two radii. The inner radius is small, but the enemy spawn room must be within that radius to be affected; in fact, the inner radius affects even the exceptions (listed below) as to what the MDM does not normally affect. The outer radius is a bit more generous and stops enemy S-AMS functionality of non-squad members. The MDM does not affect:

• enemy or ally S-AMS squad spawning
  • exception: no one can spawn on it either
  • exception: no spawn points can exist within the inner radius; S-AMS will not deploy, spawn-on-squad functionality is also temporarily disabled, and beacons explode when they are placed; this is retroactive
• enemy or ally G-AMS squad spawning
• enemy or ally V-AMS squad spawning

When an MDM deploys within outer radius of an already deployed enemy S-AMS, the latter will not be affected, as long as it stays deployed. The MDM module is affected by the no-deploy region, so placing it is non-trivial and will not work for some bases.

I'm pulling back my proposed balancing method for being awkward, save for the low-level hum when active; and perhaps a delay upon deployment before it takes effect. Like I stated above, I've really not thought it that far through, included how it scales.

The real answer is that designing a game is harder than it sounds, and that what people think they want is different from what the game needs. I'm not saying redeployside is good (it's not), but it's not a simple issue, because you need people to be able to easily rush to defend a base or there will just be a ton of ghostcapping everywhere, but if it's too easy, you get what we've got currently.

"redeployside" isn't a thing.

It's something someone doesn't like, with the word "side" at the end.

People don't defend it, because there hasn't been, and never will be, a reason to.

Respawnside.
Re-equipside.
Growabeardside.

Sideside?

You just need to get creative and use all the tools available to counter redeployside...example, battle sundies inside the base.

RCN6 also has a new tactic of keeping an engineer team on the ground launching smoke grenades at the enemy spawn room while duster liberators hover above.

A combination of an infantry team on the ground to keep the enemy zerg fixed in a set location, a forward air controller on the ground putting down waypoints for airstrikes coordinating with duster liberator teams has been our best counter to redeployside so far.

The concept is simple. You pick a chokepoint to "fix" the enemy forces into a single location, where they will naturally cluster at until they get the necessary numbers to break through. While they are fixed, you put down a waypoint and call in your air support that is waiting off map to fly in and bomb the target location. (Use two duster liberators flying in formation for the best results)

The only people who are "letting redeployside kill the game" are outfit leaders who don't do anything about it.

People a few months ago: ''spamming spawn rooms with HE shells is a valid and good tactic! Stop complaining about it and just redeploy to defend the next base because if you get shelled the fight is already over" QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

Recently after people redeploy when the fight is ''over'': ''redeployside is so annoying, people redeploy away when they start getting spawn camped instead of letting me pad my KDR with my skilless crutches and it makes me mad because i can't get a good KPH because i heard from good players that it's also an important stat'' QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

In a future where redeploy has been removed: ''people don't even play the game anymore because they don't want to waste 5+ minutes to just reach a base where there is small chance of having an actual fight going on when they arrive, and if they lose then they'll also log off because it will take another 5 minutes just to go back to the next base being captured, which will probably already be captured and the next base will already be flipped and the attackers will already be settled in the base we have to DEFEND" QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ


TL;DR : q

Nobody said it was simple. However, it's not going to get any *more* simple over time. They haven't even said they were CONSIDERING working on it, much less getting anything down the pipeline. They could at least placate us with interim fixes. **** it, if they just made it so you couldn't spawn anywhere except:

1) Warpgate.

2) Any Sunderer within 400m.

3) Base in region you died in or nearest connected friendly base.

It would be an improvement. It doesn't have to be complicated.

That's definitely a case of "what you think you want" not being "what the game needs." With the player base shrinking as it is, we don't want to do things that will alienate casual players. I agree it would be really nice if the devs would fill us in on their stance toward this issue and on any changes that are currently in the works. People will be a lot happier if they have a little information.

There are a few reasons the redeploy mechanic hasn't been changed. You are just choosing to ignore them because they've been brought up in pretty much every "Redeployside" thread.

1) Small squads enjoy being able to pick fun fights. As it is, its already difficult to find a fun fight that isn't too one-sided on either side. Removing redeploying would hurt small squads.

2) Vehicle Terminals. Finding a base to redeploy at to spawn a new vehicle can sometimes be a pain as well. If I want to spawn an MBT I have to spawn at a nearby base that actually allows them to be spawned.

3) Its counterable via your own outfits/squads/platoons redeploying.

1) Small squads should use a sunderer or a valkyrie to get around, I'm pretty sure valkyries were introduced just for this very reason, as galaxies are too huge and visible for small ops.

2) And this is really good, think what the game would be like if you could pull MBTs from all vehicle terminals? Atm, killing a van, prowler or a mag actually means something, it means that there will be 2 AP lightings coming your way for revenge..

3) So environment is useless and the game would benefit more from having a matchmaking system and small maps to duke it out at?
Sundies? Galaxies? Valkyries? ******* FLASHES?
Why do we have all of these and roads as well, doesn't make sense.


I'm just telling you, this game was MAGIC at release when lattice didn't exist and we had really INTERESTING battles, not necessarily MASSIVE, but really ******* interesting compared to what we have now. I remember plats where the leader was having a mental battle with the enemy lead, trying to outwit and outmaneuver each other, so awesome.

Now you just need a mic and a bunch of chimps who can rush to A, nothing else

At the same time though Redeployside also hurts small squads, because that's the very mechanic by which a fun 12 v 12 or 24 v 24 fight can suddenly become a 24 v 48+ fight. Entire platoons are discouraged from ruining small fights if they'd have to drive across the map to get there.

With current redeploy mechanics, you really aren't guaranteed a base to pull MBTs anyhow. Maybe yes, maybe no, but current redeploy mechanics aren't quite relevant there. At any rate, I doubt anyone who is against Redeployside would be against allowing people to spawn into bases that are not currently being contested.

Not counterable in any meaningful sense. By the time you've figured which hex the enemy has scattered to, they've likely already flooded out of the spawnroom and have taken defensive positions. What would be counterable is if you had a chance to intercept incoming enemy transports.

This guy has the right idea.

"Solving" redeployside without making the game a complete chore to play is a herculean effort, and judging from what Malorn has said, they have gone over many alternatives to no avail.

I don't think redeployside is killing the game, but I do think it's pretty cheesy.

The problem is not people redeploying to avoid camping. The problem is in this game you can relocate a full platoon in 10 seconds by just pressing Cancel. PL set the waypoint, yells in chat to redeploy immediately and suddenly a 50% vs 50% turns into a 80% vs 20%. This is bloody frustrating and it happens all the time during alerts. You have to capture as much territory as possible and teleporting gives a HUGE advantage. You get steamrolled by a horde popping out of nowhere. I did this with MM on Miller many times.

The truth is devs wanted the game to be more noob friendly as they thought new players found hard to find good fights. But this redeploy thing instead made the problem even worse.

Nobody said it was easy, but the entire route they've gone in making this game is asinine and has wasted a lot of time and resources for almost nothing. It makes me really sad thinking that all these things the players want, we requested over and over in alpha and worked really well in the first game.

Redeploy to a new fight should be more like a Valkyrie ride and dropping spawn beacons, not teleporting out of a spawn room.
intead of making the game more noob friendly it screws every small / medium fight during alerts. And it worsen ps2 main issue: population imbalance.
Probably devs think it's fun being blown away by a ghost army that 20 seconds before wasn't even there.

So how about this: redeploying costs nanites. Simple.

Spawning at an adjacent base would always be free, as would spawning into a squad Galaxy or Sunderer. Everything else costs nanites, whether it's spawning into a reinforcements needed base, spawning on your squad leader, using a spawn beacon outside your current hex etc. The further the spawn is from your current location the more nanites it costs.

To cap it off you can get either a nanite credit or a further nanite penalty for spawning into a hex depending on the population balance there. If it's 60/40 in your favor maybe your redeploy costs 1.3x as much as normal, if it's 40/60 maybe it's 33% cheaper to redeploy there. If it's 50/50 the cost just depends on the distance. And again once you're in the hex you can spawn at it for free, this cost only covers redeploying across the map.

It's a simple, intuitive system that doesn't need any further explaining. It would effectively end the practice of constantly redeploying whole platoons across the map while keeping the system open for people who only redeploy once in a while to get to a new fight when one ends. No outfit leader is going to bother trying to organize everyone's nanite pools to ensure he can redeploy everyone across the map, he'll tell people to grab Galaxies and fly them there to spawn into like it's supposed to work.