Let's talk game rules that are not really game rules.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Commandoo, Aug 25, 2019.

  1. adamts01

    Dude, go grab a smoke or something and calm down. These rules are not all that different than the rule of not using an aimbot. Those aimbot players are having their fun ruined by those pesky rules. All it is is a consensus by a significant amount of players that they'll choose to act in a little more cultured way. Like slowing down to let a truck with a trailer merge, or holding a door for someone. You don't officially have to do it, but it makes the world a better place.

    I think this behavior is more important than ever because of our dwindling population.

    The friction comes from those playing to win and those playing for fun. What I'd say to those playing to win is to be careful, or soon there won't be much if a game at all. The air game is mostly affected by this becautse the population is often just a handful of players. If 3 or 4 guys group up on my faction and dominate the air, I'll switch factions and start killing them. Then more air from all sides shows up, and we can keep having fights. Now consider Briggs. Say there's 10 people on one faction and 3 on each other. If those 10 stuck together they would t have a single person to shoot all night. So the choice is group up and easily cap every base without firing a shot, or split up and actually have a fight.

    These rules are basically doing the dev's job for them. Fixing what they haven't been able to.
  2. Commandoo

    Playing to win is what keeps the game alive for me! The game devs do not listen to its playerbase anyways . Evident by the killcam nonsense. So having thee rules ever set in some isn't never going to happen!

    From day 1 I was going for the win after watching countless hours of random streams. I had a general idea.

    Following these rules and not following. If you follow them then you get smashed up the second another faction gets more population. For example you can fanny around telling squads to not kill sundies and not bring out a max at higher population times. BUT Then another faction gets higher population and then max crashes you and farms you at sundies! This was evident the other week when my outfit complained about this happening. Suck it up and just do what it takes to win. They do it to us! Having rules like no zerging is hard when it's a Zerg fest regardless.

    I can see why these rules are in place. But not ideal for most situations when the enemy team doesn't follow them and you get wiped off the map or pushed back to warp gate at any given chance.

    Playing NC is bad enough with all the newbs so crashing bases is needed to secure them.

    It's a shame ceres doesn't have many good outfits.
  3. Trigga

    Lets stop that right there shall we.
    That is totally and completely nonsense and you should be rescinding it tbh.

    Zerging, killing sundies, and using so called OP weapons and platforms, is legitimate game play, using an aimbot is not.
    This thread is talking about legit gameplay, not cheats.

    My response to the thread:
    Why is it that the enemy can never be bothered to muster a substantial counter zerg and prefers to whine about 'sportmanship' pfft, nonsense, being sporting is giving you a change to respond, the timer on the base does that.
    Sidenote - i love zerging, theres nothing better than sitting on the flank of 30 enemy vehicles picking one off at a time, and then setting an ambush for the ones that try to rush your position.
    Do it all the time, fail a lot, have success a lot, all part of the fun for me, keep zerging guys.

    Killing sundies
    Everyone knows theyre soft targets, easy to find, easy to take out, yet again no-one seems to respond to that.
    Defend your sundies and theyll last longer, i rarely take a sundy to a base and deploy it, then just leave it.
    Dont rely on your enemy for success, generate that for yourself or its meaningless anyway.

    Using OP weapons and platforms
    Its the devs responsibility to balance the weapons, if they decide something is to be more powerful than something else i.e. MAX vs Inf, then thats their descision and i should base my gameplay around playing their game, not some random made up in my head one.

    I cant help but think that most of the so called 'problems' people have with this stuff is it ruins their ability to do what i call 'run and gun gameplay'. Ignore most things around you and shoot at enemy infantry with your main weapon.
    Thought about vehicles, or MAXs, or c4, or aircraft is unwantted and annoying to them so they attempt to shame the people doing it until they stop.
    Wanting to run and gun is fine, exclusively playing infiltrator with a silenced pistol is fine, seeking only directive points and nothing else is a viable route to take, but these people need to realise that the game is bigger than their little fight, or their little ambition.
    People will claim otherwise and that their intentions are pure, some will probably be genuine, but at the end of the day telling some1 'you cant do something because it stops me from doing something else' is being a total and complete hypocrite.

    Some1 has to be the person who loses out and doesnt get to do exclusively what they want, but lets let the game decide this using the game rules, not crap made up by players, otherwise the people losing out never changes, which it should.
  4. adamts01

    It's not about doing one exclusive thing, it's about having combat period. Kill a late night Sundy, and you might as well take a smoke break because there's nothing else to shoot for 5 minutes. Zerg an air alert with rep gals, and no one will have anything to shoot. Zerg a lane, and have fun sitting outside an empty spawn. Bring a Banshee to a 1-12, then those guys get to take a smoke break till another fight happens. Over-pop air, then only a single faction has planes and none of them have something to shoot. Guard a Sundy during a small fight and you may as well fire up a YouTube video while you sit there with no one to shoot. Pull a spawnroom Burster at every small fight in case air shoes up and you better pick up a side job of knitting or something.

    And no, these rules aren't entirely off from "legitimate" rules. Zerging has been the number one complaint since this game's launch, and major patch after major patch has focused on limiting it. Of course no one should be banned for any of these things, but they should be discouraged as they're counter to having good fights and counter to the spirit of Daybreak's goals.
  5. Trigga

    Why are you talking about fight with less than 5 people total? Thats not planetside to me.

    But to contend, if your sundy keeps getting killed at a late night fight why not defend it against the 1 person who will be trying to kill it?
    If that 1 person beats you and gets to the sundy and kills it, didnt they beat you and win the fight? Why does the fight have to exist around the points solely? With so little pop a fight over a sundy can be as entertaining as a fight over a base point.
    And, why can the attackers destroy the defenders spawns (take the base)? Shouldnt the rule be 'no killing sundy, no hacking point' and everyone just has clusterF?
    Why dont those infantry go and get ESFs and have an air duel with the banshee user?
    Why is it the banshee user in the wrong if the other players are unwilling to respond to the threat?
    I wish more people on Miller would zerg with rep gals, the ones that try sit there and eat 5 tank shells like theyre immortal, then panic before exploding into a fireball after the next few. They said they removed stacking didnt they?
    But, same thing applies, the enemy has equal numbers why cant they respond with an equal amount of gals and have a massive gunship fight? Sounds awesome to me.
    If the terms of the engagement are blanced against you, you change to terms to be more balanced, you dont ask your enemy to do it for you. Planetside has a large list of counters, everything has a counter, part of the fun is learning what is effective as the counter, its not always so obvious.

    A zerg doesnt exist if the enemy respond with equal numbers, which thanks to map balancing is more than likely achievable.
    I feel all these rules put 1 party at fault here, the agressor, without considering that the so called 'victims' are in fact self induced.

    Zerging is not cheating, no matter how many times you say it is.
  6. adamts01

    Please quote where I said it was. And you're still missing the entire point if you think that's what I'm implying.
  7. Trigga

    I dont really want to turn this into a you said i said playground argument, but:
    They are completely different. There is 0 similarity with ''you agree not to use third party software to alter.....etc..'' (EULA) and some playstyle preferences some players have.

    I dont think im missing the point, but please correct me if im wrong, youre implying that the rules exist for 'fair play'?
    I argue that by making those rules you are infact not being fair to the entire playerbase, or the entire game.
  8. Exileant

    :eek: Stop listening to people in game... ;) Play YOUR way. Please trust and believe, we are following NO such rules over here on V.S... If you wanna flash mob us, we will take those kills. We need and WANT the Certs your flesh provides. o_O I farm or destroy what I want when I want, unless someone gives me a good reason that benefits me on why I should not. The basis of the game is to do what you wanna, when you wanna do it, as often as you like. :confused: Odds are they did not want to rush because when you push a faction too hard, they tend to retaliate. Vanu and T.R. seem to be the worst teams to corner.... :D We get on the horn and cry for help and let slip the hounds of Hades. Also, do not stay away for a whole weekend just because of other people... Leave that Outfit and go have fun. Randoms will be happy to run with you. I find I enjoy myself most as the outsider that provides large teams with roaming support. That way, when I get tired of the company, I leave the area guilt free.:p
  9. adamts01

    Daybreak has tried relentlessly to increase competition. They've reworked the lattice lanes, changed spawn systems, changed squad beacons, redesigned bases, created no deploy zones.... Everything they can think of to even fights as much as possible. Doing our part to even out fights is entirely in the spirit of what Daybreak is trying to do, because many of us see it's what's good for the game. It's like making a fat kid eat vegetables when he wants ice cream.
    • Up x 1
  10. FateJH

    That's not really a good simile. Diets only work if one accepts the conditions of the diet.

    It's more like playing Chess, but one side refuses to use en passant against the other, thus permitting privileged pieces to stay in play artificially and invade their ranks beyond strategic expectations.
  11. adamts01

    Kids don't have much of a choice. They don't accept any terms of what theor parents bring home from the grocery store. Daybreak wants to limit zerging, they force fed the playerbase this new spawn system, and fights are more even than they've ever been.

    Your chess example would fit player-made rules. But I'd really hope to see more and more people hop on board. It's like Thai fighters not throwing elbows unless thre other guy starts. It's perfectly legal, but they don't cut up the other guy's face because they both need to fight again the next night to get paid.
  12. Trigga

    *must have missed this reply.

    I fail to see how any of this recent line of thought correlates to what we were talking about.
    Its nothing like getting a fat kid to eat right, i cannot even draw a parallel.

    Daybreak have reworked the lattice lanes, changed spawn systems, changed squad beacons, redesigned bases, created no deploy zones, but Daybreak have not created any of the 'unwritten' rules mentioned.
    For example, if they wanted the spawns to never be killed, they would give every base a hard spawn point that can be hacked, like some AMP stations have. They havent done this.

    You want the playerbase to help with zerging, by not zerging.
    I want the playerbase to help with zerging, by countering the zerg with a zerg.

    Creating an unwritten rule to never zerg, actively discludes the people who want to take option 2 of counter zerging, which in a game designed around large scale warfare & massive fights seems illogical.

    Another thought; why should Daybreak force their kids to eat veg if they dont want to?
  13. adamts01

    Fat kids want cake, but responsible parents would force him to eat vegetables. Why can't we give players cake? If I could have clicked a button and received every upgrade for free when I first started I would have. But without something to work for many people would soon lose their desire to play. If shotgun players got their cake, they'd quadruple their max damage range. Getting what you want is quite often harmful in the long run. That's the entire reason we have elected representatives instead of a pure democracy making every little decision. Their job is to keep the country running, while a mob would simply vote for a "free" living wage and the country would collapse.

    While "zerging" isn't an official definition, a key quality is using vastly superior numbers to steamroll the enemy. If an enemy meets them with equal pop you can't really say anyone is zerging. As for making a rule "no zerging", you know that's silly. Daybreak has done quite a lot to limit zerging, and noted that as their stated goal, so helping them out is absolutely the right thing to do. Some of us choose to eat our vegetables because it's good for the game.
  14. Trigga

    And as i asked earlier, why would a game designer force its playerbase to stop doing the thing theyve enjoyed doing for 6 years? It makes 0 logical sense and 0 commercial sense. It would be like Coke suddenly saying 'you guys drink too much of our original flavour' we are no longer going to produce it so you have to buy our other flavours instead', what do you think would happen?
    This isnt a parent / child situation where the 'right' thing is clear, eating healthy in this case. Hating zergs is a preference you have, not eating deep fried animal fat foods every meal is a requirement to live.

    The word zerg was coined by starcraft and was defined there also, but i think we all know that, so lets not state the obvious.
    How does one respond to a zerg without another one forming in the first place?
    In other words, how to we ensure that the game achieves the 'massive battles' and 'large scale warefare' its designed to and advertised as providing?
    If zerging happens because of zergfits, limit outfits to a platoon size only to prevent them forming huge zergs? Daybreak have not done this, they have not created this rule, its not up to us to create game rules, just play the game within the actual rules.
    I personally dont think it was 'zerging' that daybreak were trying to prevent with the new spawn changes, it was redeployside, a much bigger problem.
    A zerg can be countered by another zerg because they have to move from place to place, this takes time, can be seen happening
    (the game even gives us pop levels in each hex), and is fun for all involved due to the aforementioned huge battle that ensues.
    A platoon pressing 1 button then magically appearing on the other side of the continent is bad enough, them then vastly outnumbering the attacking force is just a kick in the guts. Why didnt they have to use logistical vehicles? This is why spawn camping became such a valid tactic and this is what the new rules attempt to prevent imo, not zergs forming in the first place.

    Apologies for the word count.
  15. adamts01

    - This isn't a new trend of trying to force fights. This problem goes back to the beginning of this game, and though I didn't play it, I'm sure Planetside 1 as well. Also, people haven't been "enjoying" zerging for 6 years. It's one of the most universally complained about things. But yes, any change has its fans and critics. It's always a balancing act and drastic changes to a dying game are risky.

    - Yes, limiting zerging was their goal. 100%. The population limiters as evidence.
  16. Trigga

    No, there was no zerg in planetside 1, massing your empires forces didnt have this dirogatory name attached to it in an attempt to make people dislike it.
    People wanted to have the biggest fights possible as was the games intent, as is PS2s intent, so in command chat it was discussed what the 'primary target' would be, then a global command of 'Primary = Zotz' for example would be issued and everyone on the empire would go there.
    Most of the time everyone on the opposing empire went there aswel and we would then have an awesome fight, the entire point of the game afterall. Unless of course it was a three way on the continent (thats right, it wasnt always a three way as continents had no strongholds), in which case 1 empire was shafted with barley anyone to fight.
    People wernt afraid of the game like they are in Planetside 2, certainly not the people i played with and around. I dont think in my entire 10 years of playing it i ever heard anyone moan about overpop or zerging, despite that being a daily occurrence.
    Infact it was the opposite (this is probably why i have the opinion i do) people moaned about other players not responding to the enemy attack, the 'back-hack' as we called it.
    So please, if youve not played it dont comment on it, it would be like me commenting on how world of warcraft players behave despite never ever setting foot on the game.

    I disagree its one of the most complained about things, but neither of us have evidence for that statement so lets put that aside for now, and in any case forum users represent a minority of all players and i dont remember ever seeing an in-game questionaire.
    As i said earlier, the goal was to limit 'redeployside' not limit everyone going to the same place to fight.
    Perhaps you should take a look at the advertisement for the game, notice what happens at the end of the vid......this game isnt about small fights, its not about small forces or small squads, its about big big big.
    IMO they do not want to stop zergs forming, they want to stop zergs instantly redeploying all their forces without effort.
    And if they do want to stop any zerg ever because they think people leave this MMO because its too big (totally illogical) then they are clearly not doing a good job as theyve as yet failed to reduce the downward trend of the population.

    Population imbalance is a totally different subject btw, im sure you didnt mean to start off down that road.
  17. adamts01

    A couple posts back I mentioned big fights being ideal. It's not at all thge size of the fights that bothers me, it's the lack of fights due to imbalance. And you misunderstood my PS1 comment. To clarify, I'm sure those developers were concerned with competitive fights back then as well. That's the entire point of lattice lines and such. And yeah, I'm sure players back then wanted a fight. Maybe those devs didn't have to worry so much about people avoiding conflict. That competitive spirit is missing from the current generation of snowflakes we have to deal with. These kids need competition force fed to them. And yes, friendlies not opposing a zerg is a problem. I've criticized skylights left and right for not grouping up to oppose air zergs. On the other hand, we do have a dying game, and I see it as equally detrimental to form a group that you know can't be opposed. This isn't 2015 with enough numbers to work out these coordinated anomalies. It's like having a UFC fighter walk in to a dojo full of teenagers and blame them for not fighting him. Martial arts solves that with belts and weight limits. The *** helps balance with draft picks. Other games use match makers. Lobby games let players reorganize after every match. And in my opinion this community needs to do a little self policing to keep the game alive.
  18. Trigga

    Theres plenty of max population fights on my server, but if theres not enough pop to sustain 5 servers so they can actualy play the game as intended.....perhaps they need to merge the servers?
    PS1 in the end had 1 American server, im not suggesting that at this point, but Miller / Colbalt, they could be merged without causing additional latency for anyone (assuming the servers are housed in the same place). Then we are guaranteed max pop fights where each empire has 33% and can respond to zergs as needed.
    As for players avoiding fights, theres quite a simple solution to that, remove all non combat XP gain.
    Reward support XP to players who helped some1, a certain % of each kill a player youve supported gets.
    For example, give some1 ammo, get 10% of their kill XP amount as support XP, but only if they kill before respawning. Repair a vehicle, get 5% of the kill / vehicle destruction XP, until the vehicle is destroyed. Provide radar and get 1% of each kill that happens within the radar area (similar to now), %s subject to change.
    Remove the XP gain for capturing bases, replace it with dynamic XP based on how much XP was generated in the whole battle before the base was captured, and grant dynamic XP to defenders for resecuring. How exactly it would count this XP i dont know but PS1 did it somehow, im sure PS2 could also. Rewarding people for avoiding fights completely is ridiculous and is exactly what base cap XP does atm.
    This would create an interesting trade-off of 'get lots of XP at the big fights, or, do what my empire needs me to but get very little XP', which in turn gives veteran players something useful to do besides farming less able players relentlessly.

    Of course non of this will ever happen but one can dream.
    We are off an a tangent a little now, but i feel we understand each other, thanx for conversing.
    • Up x 1
  19. TR5L4Y3R

    just play the game as you see fit, there is no obligation to follow someonees self imposed "gentleman" rules
    ignore theats and report the as asholeplayerswith their silly holier-than-you attitude ... screw those people ..
  20. adamts01

    Pretty much. Connery and Emerald should merge. And I really wish Soltech was put in Singapore so all of Asia as well as Australia could play there with decent ping. Australia really got screwed. Many of those guys are warping around Connery with 350ms ping, and their ping to Soltech is worse than that. If the US servers merged then they'd be playing on a central US server with probably 400-450 ping, and be just as annoying as inland China is.

Share This Page