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

I just want to point out that SOE actively encourages people to try to fights of all sizes to see which ones they like. It's even a tool-tip they show in the game. So those little 12-24 fights are perfectly legit.

Look, that Population Imbalance isn't the fault of Redeploy as it is, because Reinforcement Needed Redeploy cuts off at 50%+ for your Side.

It's the Zerg Platoons using this to exploit Squad Leader Spawning instead!
There in lies the Rub; Removing Redeploy wouldn't hinder such Tactics in the least, because those very Platoons would still have access to not only Squad Leader Spawning, but also Squad Beacons and Vehicle Squad Spawns, while those NOT in said Platoons are left with nothing to counter act them.

Indeed, this was something the Original Planetside did FAR better...
Not only was each Facility a Fortress in it's own right, the Control Console was probably the EASIEST part for Attackers to Hold, but they had to do so for fifteen minutes.

Then you had the Base Generators, which powered EVERYTHING at a Base but could be destroyed with a bit of effort, making everything at that Base inoperable.

Finally, you had the Spawn Tubes themselves, which could be destroyed on their own, but were always protected by a Pain Field.

All this functioned off the Facilities NTU (Nanite Technological Unit) Silo, which was basically the 'fuel' that kept everything powered and repaired.
It was used up to repair things, and if you ran out the Generator stopped working and the Base would flip to Neutral Control.

Actually no, Redeploy keeps the Zerg from steamrolling in the first place.

Because every fight can be easily re-enforced by your own Zerg, an Offensive Zerg isn't a guaranteed win because it isn't a simple matter of breaking the moral of what few Defenders try to stand against one.
Instead, you have to actually be SMART about your Offense, knowing what you need to do to keep control of the point JUST long enough for a Base to Flip.

...Now, this mostly boils down to Spawn Camping, but that's more of an issue of ****** Base Design than anything else...

Well that's the issue here, Redeploy was put into place to address the problem with Zergside in the first place...

You see as it stands, most fights are decided simply by whoever has the most bodies to throw at the Control Points, because Bases are still rather usually just a bunch of Shacks and not suitable Defensive Fortifications at ALL.
More work needs to be done on each individual Base, and we need an Intercontinental Lattice for more Territory over all, so as to mitigate the huge advantage that currently comes through sheer Weight of Numbers.

Well that isn't actually the Lattice's fault, rather it's an issue that comes up when you split each map three ways evenly.

With more Continents and an Intercontinental Lattice, three way Continent fights become more of a rarity, as each Faction has to struggle to hold against one another.
This is why we need Warpgates that WORK AS GATES and not as Permanent Foothold, so the fighting can have a much larger berth of natural progression and regression.
Of course, most of us players knew this was going to happen at the end of BETA!

Pretty much...
Most people who hate being overwhelmed by Defenders just aren't good enough to play the game Tactically or Strategically, instead relying on the strength of the GROUP to do most of the work for them.
They are casual players who don't know anything that works outside of overwhelming brute force, and not being able to rely on that makes them upset.

You think Redeploy is the reason you get LOLBULLDOGGED?
No, that's Zergs knowing the best way to keep a Counter-Zerg from retaking a Base is to keep the Spawn Suppressed...

Problem is, we still have Spawns that are little more than a SHACK out in the open, which means the easiest way to Suppress them is through camping with Vehicles.

Believe me, it was a LOT worse when Zergs weren't busy Teleporting between Bases on Defense, because back then they'd just **** all over you with Vehicles.

There is something wrong, but it isn't necessarily Redeploy's fault...

Really, this is the result of concentrating all three Factions into constant Three-way Continent Fights, which always requires each Faction to be highly mobile enough to respond to threats on TWO Fronts.

If we didn't have to keep a constant vigil in TWO directions, the strain of needing to be so Mobile would be far less.

Exactly!
As it is right now, Defensive Zergs are far too cumbersome to employ their strength correctly, such a sledgehammer takes far too long to swing to whack every mole as it pops up.

Trying to do so is often a self-defeating effort; The strain of organizing that many people tires out the Leaders while their Troops get bored with constantly jumping around with no action.

One thing I would say though is that We have to look at how the Capture and availability of capture on a base has changed over time since the game started.

While it is designed to cut off youre deploy at certain % levels, there is a definite delay in the cut off, related I think to how the pop on the map is updated with a delay. Add in the systems designed to remove the "WTF did I spawn here?" stuff that still happens with some AMS's.

Originally there was no Latice system, which by it's nature was intended to give us a more spread out fight, but didn't quite work out that way. However when you add how the deplay system was being done, I think it was designed around that kind of Map flow. Since we moved to the Lattice system it has pushed for more concentrated fights, and it feels like it has been a struggle to fit in the deploy system to match this battle flow. As a result I think that it is this mishmash of different designs ( if not originally so) that is helping to cause the issues.

We have a lot of strange duality in the game setup. We have large maps where distance, travel paths, are supose to make a difference in the fights. Where the areas between bases are where the most vehicle combat happens, while we design the actual bases to be more of an infantry fight, yet have systems that let you move said infantry around from base to base safely avoiding these factors. So we come into the conflict of making vehicles useful and fun for people to play, yet also trying to make them not be the dominating factor in capturing a base.

There is a large issue (not my own belief mind you, more what seems to be a general statement on forums) that Maxes hurt Infantry game play, yet at the same time they are an integral factor in the way the redeploy saves tend to happen. What happens if we make any major changes to Maxes in the future? will this end up helping or hurting game play, and will the Redeploy save be soo entrenched at this time to cause a large backlash in a sudden loss of effectiveness.

I will agree that this may to be a Game killing issue, but as we have seen in the "Competitive" side of the game such as the server smashes, this tactic is playing a larger and larger roll in victors for one side or another, and I still believe that it needs to be addressed. I'm not saying it needs a 100% removal, but I do think that we need to have a good long look at how we can add more viable tactics to resecure bases that can be as effective as the redeploy can be, Perhaps by having a better risk vs reward added.

You end up investing a lot more time and resources into sending a squad of tanks to clear a base ( as well as potential of being cut off) then you do max crashing from a spawn room.

I never thought much about this until recently. I have been in some good battles where we attack but then a huge pile of enemies redeploy and save the day. Can hardly capture a base because this always happens so often now more. Much be more common thesedays. Perhaps make it so that people far away can at best deploy to bases next to it so they have to travel a little.

It just promotes farming, since bases heavily favor defenders. All points should be outside of tower hexes and an SCU needs to be on every 3 point cap.

Defender sundys should not be allowed to be deployed in the no deploy zone. This would take the sting out of redeployside.

SOE dev's know this is an issue. They just don't have the resources to do anything about it ATM since they are working 100% on porting PS2 over to the PS4. It will be addressed eventually. Just be patient.

I'll defend it.

Standard Play needs the crutch just to get battles going. Server Smash just steamrolls over it, so it doesn't matter for them anyway.

Take ReDeploy out of current Standard Play, and we'd be stuck with a lot more Ghostcapping.

Most players don't want to deal with the headache of spending their in-game time mostly traveling or getting ganked while traveling. SOE doesn't understand they need to add ally territory Air Radar to make a logistics game work (and avoid Air just ganking units in transit). Between all of that, the game is better for most players as it is.

I think there certainly needs to be an out of combat timer on redeploying. One minute. Maybe 30 secs. 10 secs with no out of combat timer is no good.

If the continents werent so horrible to drive on, except indar which is never open, then perhaps having to actually transport troops wouldnt be such a task.

The best part is within 45 seconds of getting wiped from the base and pushed back into the last base you were at, the population of the enemy faction in the region shrinks by 75%.

Dropping at the base behind an enemy platoon is a valid tactic when your objective is to get them to redeploy back to fight you, allowing an outnumbered friendly force some room to breathe and a chance to regroup. Even better if you defeat the reinforcements.

If you don't like it buddy go play a even 6v6 in COD or something that would get you off.

Or you could just send a fighter jet to kill the ghost cappers' Valkyrie and be done with it.

They will be stuck to spawning in their nearest friendly base, or warpgate, or for instance large bases (Bio/Tech/Amp), rather than somewhere across the continent, where there are no defenders.

Then take the fight to them, they can either run or defend.

Their empire will be able to predict that if there's people in Base A, they'll most likely go to Base B or C, which are the only ones connected by the lattice (or you can also teleport to the select few bases that you own, rather than randomly across the continent).

That means finding the enemy is easy, if not in the base the map showed they're at, they'll at least be driving or flying near it if they don't want to drive or fly from their WG or large facility.

Farewell, ghost caps.
Farewell, RedeploySide.

Hello, wargame.
Hello, strategy.

You misunderstand.

It will create Ghostcapping by even larger and more dense Ground Vehicle Zergs. The Zerg will have Air support if it's closer to their Warpgate, and it will have less Air support as it nears the enemies Warpgate. It will also motivate players (even more) to join Continents that their faction is the over-pop.

No ESF will stand a chance vs. that.

If you remove ReDeploy, it becomes a predator bonanza, where ESFs (even better when in Squads) can roam the map like Pumpkin Hunting, and pick off any non-Zerg Ground Vehicles. Forcing Vehicles into tight Zergs (circle the wagons) and Continents where they have overpop. This can be stopped by adding Air Radar that shows any Enemy Air that moves more than 1 base beyond their Faction Border on all maps, but that is not in the game now and I don't think SOE has the vision to grasp such variables.

ESF roams the map trying to ghostcap, and in the meantime enemy ESF roams the map to counter-ghostcap.
What's the difference between this and what we have today? That redeploying is much faster, comfortable, and allows troops to resecure by completely avoiding enemy forces until they step out of the spawn room.

Devs should at least instantly block redeploy as an option once population hits 50% vs 50%. This would at least eliminate the effect "steamrolling horde popping out of nowhere".

If a vehicle zerg is in X, Amerish, then it won't appear a minute later in A, Hossin. It'll have to go down the lattice to Y or Z, both in Amerish. Not only their direction is predictable, but also the time they'll be there. Thus it's possible to plan ahead and prepare for them.

A group of 8 people can deploy 24 bricks of C4, IIRC 40 tank mines and 16 infantry mines - all at once...
Then said 8 people bring 4 gunships and wait for the explosions to start, after which they dive in and bomb the zerg as they're trying to clear a path in the mine field.

These tactics used to work, shortly after PS 2 was released and people actually used Sundies and Galaxies as transports, and it was possible to figure out where they could go. Nowadays it's a lottery - I've set up many ambushes for the big zerg at the next base, only to be capturing it against 1-12 defenders 2 minutes later, because the 96+ people there disappeared, after which my team had to fall back because we were suddenly outnumbered 24-48 vs the 8 of us when the base was 1 minute until captured.

It's not like we didn't have someone on a nearby hill looking towards enemy territory to spot an incoming counter-attack, they just materialize in the spawn, making pretty much all siege tactics go out the window (they all rely on the fact that the besieged people don't suddenly increase their numbers tenfold).

This also makes vehicles limited to one role - if the enemies bring infantry from the spawn, then bombarding said infantry in said spawn is the only thing available for tanks and planes to do. Stopping the supply convoy is not an option, because the supply convoy itself is pointless.

Then there's another aspect - everyone fights over the spawn room doors, because there's no other place the defenders will be coming from if there's no frontal battle nearby with Sundies deployed (they and their escorting tanks would cost time and resources to deploy, so it's better to just bring more people than the enemy has bullets and hope for the best).

Such gameplay may be fun for people who fight in a map, then have a loading screen and fight in another map, but that's not the point of PlanetSide 2, it's not what makes PS 2 unique.

Well, the guys closer to their WG will likely be the underpop faction, I have no issue with them having more vehicles, both ground and air.

Those marauding ESFs will be worth a lot of points really quick.
Long gone are the days where a fighter was worth 50 XP for a kill assist when it crashed into the ground. Now one with a good pilot it can get close to 1000 points for that single plane (a lot more for a gunship with 3 extreme menaces aboard).

Enter the marauding ESF hunters, expert pilots who enjoy having plentiful airborne targets to destroy. It goes the same way with tanks - all the dedicated operators run with AP rounds and most also have an anti-tank secondary, so they can go against the odds and win if the enemies ain't running an anti-vehicle loadout.

As for non-zerg ground vehicles, 2 Basilisks on a Sundy and a Skyguard are enough to defeat all but the most well organized and operated ESF squads - and even against those a ground squad will go down literally guns blazing.

P.S. Radar showing planes beyond render distance would be really fun.

The problem with nerfing redeployside is that the more casual gamers already have a difficulty going from one base to another. When the fight on their base dies down and everybody moved off they don't do much else then see if they can redeploy quickly to another fun fight or log off. If they log off then it's less likely that they spend money on the game and thus SOE is less likely to make a profit.

Further more it has always been very difficult for new players to find a good fight, being able to quickly redeploy gives them the ability to quickly move about the playing field. Reducing spawn timers and not linking resources to spawning also helps in keeping players active and not punishing them for dying. This is all to keep the more casual gamers playing. And they feed the other players targets to shoot at.

Now the problem stems from the fact that whole outfits and platoons are also able to use this exact same mechanic to move around quickly. These players are perfectly capable of organizing Galaxies or Sunderers to move around but use the redeploying for easier and faster and safer movement between bases.
Now your first response to that could easily be 'then prevent platoons from using the redeploy mechanic'. That will be easily circumvented by not using platoons any more and just coordinate squads amongst each other without them being able to see where the other squads are. It will be a bit more difficult to cooperate but not impossible. The positives of being able to quickly redeploy will outweigh the negatives of not easily seeing each other any more or losing Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and Delta waypoints.

The way to fix this (in my humble opinion) would be to restrict spawning from a base if your faction is over populating. A change to capture mechanics would also work. The saying goes 'attack is the best defense'. However in this game 'attacking' and 'defending' have been reversed. The 'attacker' moves into an enemy base and then sets up camp in the enemies point room. The 'defenders' have to stop the 'attackers' from moving into the base, but nobody has a defense force at a base before the 'attackers' move in so the 'attackers' always* get into the point room.
From the moment the 'attackers' are in the point room they turn from 'attackers' into 'defenders'. And the owners of the base turn from 'defenders' to 'attackers' because they have to attack their own point room to recapture the point. This greatly increases their chance of victory. While it is good that the base owners should be able to easily take back their base. I don't think this is the way to do it.
I think a change in capturing mechanics would greatly benefit from a change. But to be honest, I don't really know how to fix it. This problem is a lot more complex then most people think it is. As most people, I only know to point out problems and not really contribute to a solution. Maybe have a module in each base that needs to be transported from the base you're attacking to the base you're defending... Well, I wanted to explain it, but see it as a 'capture the flag' in between bases.
Or maybe put down SCU's as we had during Béta. But they should be a bit easier to defend as they used to be. Maybe an SCU behind a normal generator shield? Or 2 normal generators that both need to go down?

Standard Game
ESFs only Ghostcap on emtpy continents, empty/abandoned Lattice tracks, or Continents that have just become unlocked. Ghostcaps on populated Continents are done by Ground Vehicle Zergs.

Getting rid of Deployside does not change this. It simply weakens the defenders, consolidates the Zergs more, and pushes even more players to Continents where their Faction is overpop.

ReDeploying is a method to transport players into actual battles with each other. It still only moderately works to create such battles, as many players avoid such battles do to SOE created incentives.

If you block ReDeploy, you just make the game a nightmare for casual players. And you also push them even harder to join Zergs and Continents where there faction has Overpop.

SOE simply has not created the game tools or inventive to motivate players to do anything different.

Making a less casual friendly game just drives off more players. And just gives organized hardcore players even more of an advantage that they already don't need: organized play already has vastly superior tools to eradicate casual players. And taken to their extreme (Server Smash) organized play breaks the PS2 "combined arms" ecosystem and simply powergames Infantry and Air transit/utility duty to break the game.

This is all academic. Just map out the systems and plot out what transpires. PS2's system *could* be overhauled to make one that works without ReDeploy, but the game is not there now and I do not believe SOE has the aptitude/vision to do it.

Then we need to promote more vehicle based gameplay.

Enemies defeated? Let's drive/fly to their base.

That's what instant action solves.

If they're limited to Instant Action shuffling people around the planet to generate balanced fights, they'll choose to bring a few Galaxies and fly to where they want to be.

It already works this way (or at least Reinforcements Needed is set to have a base disappear of the list when population reaches 50/50), but if 4 squad leaders deploy to an outnumbered base, the other 44 platoon members can then join in.

If squad deploy is also disabled when a base is over 50/50 so the whole team must fly or drive into an area before they can spawn in it, we might be up to something.

If someone wants a Tech Plant, they first need its satellite base. If a TP's satellite is under attack, everyone knows the TP itself is next and can prepare for it. The lattice allows the war to flow across the continent, it's possible to predict what's going to happen, which makes it possible to set up a battle plan accordingly. Strategically attackers are the ones who move forwards, defenders are the ones who arrive first and prepare.

Let's also make this work on the small scale. If someone wants a control point, they'll have to destroy a generator first.
When a generator is overloaded, everyone knows the control point is next. This is how Amp Station battles progress - attackers get across the walls, then they need to destroy the generators, then they can take the control point, and finally the SCU. The battle has a logical flow to it, so people can easily figure out what to do. Also noteworthy is that Amp Station battles don't begin with a spawn camp due to the defenders having a safe way to the control point.

Then there's more that can be done - give every base an SCU. If it gets destroyed, people will have to spawn elsewhere. Farewell, spawn camping - another carp element of PS 2 battle flow (those who don't believe it works - check out Tech Plants).

With limited spawning options they will likely go to the next base and...
Oh, we have defenders arriving first, with a couple minutes to set up a defense, or to grab a bunch of tanks and go take back the base they just got kicked out of.

With defenders getting tanks we suddenly get more open field battles as well, while attacking tanks have much more to do than tossing HE towards the spawn.

Should one side be outnumbered - random people clicking Instant Action would come to fix this.

One might say we have IA already and it doesn't work.
Well, people will manually respawn in a friendly zerg 10 seconds after they notice they're in a battle where they actually have to fight.
With limited spawning options, they'd likely stay for a minute or two - during which time perhaps a dozen more IA players would join in and 1-12 vs 24-48 becomes a 12-24 vs 24-48.
Now add a stealth Lightning that destroys 2 attacking AMS's, and within seconds the zerg might just collapse to the outnumbered defenders.

Thank you for posting the link. Wasn't aware it was still online.

There are several things I like about the original, and will probably divide my time somewhat between the two.

The buildings seem to have more function than just pieces of cover to hide behind, with some kind of purpose.

The ones in PS2, often just don't feel right. On top of them being mostly generic, there isn't much reason for them to be there. They don't even feel like proper construction.

I do like having to move supplies around, giving those of us who prefer to play a more logistical/support role, our place in the total war effort.

As for "redeployside"... yeah, that annoys me too... if you guys are deployed elsewhere, and suddenly you realize that another location needs to be defended, well, those are the breaks. You should have had people there defending it instead of ignoring it. If you have to travel cross country to get there, and you're too late, oh well.

What we got now is just different shaped killing zones. There is no territorial feel to it. Just differently configured, mindless shoot-em-up maps, and I have been getting so bored with slugging it out for 8 hours over the same spot when nobody is willing to spread out and actually defend territory, or push out elsewhere.

Haven, the other night, on, I think, Emerald server? (US one) on Esimir... They just stayed there, refusing to leave, fighting with vastly outnumbered TR, all afternoon, all evening, all night, while VS, who had numbers on part with us (NC), just steamrolled over all of our other territory while they basically ignored TR for the most part, and no matter how much begging and shouting we did, we couldn't get people out of Haven to give a damn.

We deserved to lose the continent because of that.

VS would redeploy back and forth as they pushed us back, so when we tried to exploit a weak part of their front, we were suddenly outnumbered again and we got pushed back instead.

It is one thing if they flew (or drove) over a force to help defend, as that is a realistic response.

The tactical strategy I enjoy so much in a war game, is sorely lacking in PS2... which has been a big disappointment. There are a lot of things I saw from a quick glance of PS1 I would bring into PS2...

One thing, is it takes time to get into a turret and get it operational, and to get back out again... not an instant in-and-out like in PS2. That's a small thing in the grand scheme of things, but it is realistic.

Buildings you have to hack your way into, and hack a control point instead of just standing around it.

I'll notice more as I spend more time in PS1... but it is a shame there are so few people still there.

Anyways, my vote for redeploy would be to either only be able to redeploy to warpgate (unless you get killed, then you can deploy near where you died) and/or a long cooldown between otherwise unrestricted redeploy. Not 5 minutes, but closer to 30-60 minutes.

I also liked what appeared to be a way to set your spawning location if you died. Not sure if I noticed that properly tho, will experiment later.

-- Smoov

There is almost no planning or preparing in PS2 in the Standard game:
* Casual players don't have access to the tools.
* Hardcore Organized play simply doesn't need it to dominate and overwhelm casual players.

In the Server Smash game, there is some planning and preparing, but it focuses on broken gameplay:
* Hardcore Organized players vs. other Hardcore Organized players simply use Infantry and Air (transit and utility) to break the game.

Your idea that players in the Standard game can/would plan, coordinate, or even communicate is incorrect. The tools simply are not there. Almost any FPS has better communication support/tools for large groups than PS2. PS2 is limited to Squad size groups, which coexist with a much larger MMO playerbase of deaf mutes.

The communication support/tools could be expanded and interconnected to allow for such large group planning/coordination. But it is far beyond the scope of what SOE can do, and it also contrasts with their obsession with players experiencing the game through tiny Squad sized pinholes.

You're talking about Hardcore Organized players defeating Casual Players again. This is already trivial for Hardcore Organized players. They can get creative (and unreliable) in their beating casual players, or they can just employ Server Smash tactics and win that way.

That was just you having fun and trying to make bad unreliable tactics work. You could have just Gal Dropped on their base right when they started moving their Zerg over. Flipping the base behind them, and disabling their Zergs ability to take the next base. Zergs are too slow and easily obsoleted in competitive gameplay.

Why are you trying to employ Siege tactics? Just Gal drop an overwhelming Infantry force directly on their point.

Of course supply convos are pointless in Competitive play. Just Gal drop Infantry. Why would you bother with slow and limited ground vehicles?

There is no point of Planetside 2. Don't be silly and think there is. "The Point" is simply whatever motivates each player to log in or spend money on it. SOE may have intended a point, but they didn't build the game to foster anything, and players are not playing for SOE's wants but for their own.

What makes PS2 unique is the large battlefield maps, large size and area coverage of the units/battles, and the various theme and mechanic particulars of the units/maps (that each different FPS is going to have unto itself).

Many people have stated they feel the "losing" Faction that is being driven to its Warpgate should get LESS stuff. Because "Winners" (and not losers) should be rewarded. You can argue with them about who is right.

ESFs are not like that. Because of their speed, mobility, and vulnerability, the entire Continent for an ESF is like one Base to an Infantry in terms of play area.

Whichever faction can get the most effective Air (numbers, skill, "coordination", and deciding to go for it) will dominate Air wherever that Air covers to. If enemies employ sufficient AA, then that Air will be held in some level of check relative to G2A in that area, but it will still dominate A2A even in that area (unless it's one of those areas with nothing to break line-of-sight).

AA can affect the G2A of dominant Air in the region of the AA. It will not deter that dominant Air from owning A2A, outside of some map areas that simply have no way to break line-of-sight.

Radar in the game is a mess. (like so much or the game)

Many planes need to be off Radar at some level to function. But I have said many times that adding Radar that shows planes over 1 base away from their Faction's territory or frontline would be a HUGE boost in terms of removing the tyranny of Air on Ground forces, tyranny of Air Gank Squads on Air, and move the gameplay back to engaging and supporting battlefronts.