Limiting Force Multipliers

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Xind, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. Xind

    Early this morning I spent a fair part of the day having some pretty solid fights against VS and NC on Emerald, then suddenly about 10% of TRs population logged off. The fights continued, but now literally every fight was VS has a bracket higher population. For some reason they decided to spam MAXs all damn day. Now I don't think MAXs are OP, but I do feel that excessive force multipliers when you already greatly (65% vs 35%) outnumber your opponent is kind of lame and beyond that causes a lot of people to lose interest in fighting.

    What I am proprosing is that either force, whether defending or attacking in a Hex, who has greater population incurs a progressive resource cost increase on MAX suits based on how many additional troops they have. If you have 5% extra population, MAXs cost 5% more. If you have DOUBLE the enemies numbers or more, than MAXs cost a full resource bar.

    It won't change the roflstomping nature of having double numbers, but I would hope it would cut down on MAX spam when it's completely unnecessary.
    • Up x 8
  2. Jackplays17

    I kind of like this idea, but another way to do it is just decrease how many resources they get. This would limit things such as excessive spawn camping, and too much grenade spam.
  3. AlterEgo

    Sounds like the most golden idea I've ever heard of.
    I like!
    • Up x 1
  4. GoyoElGringo

    The problem lies with the resource system as a whole. Things are too cheap, resources accumulate very fast, and the resource gain rate doesn't appear to be affected by anything in the game.
    • Up x 1
  5. iller

    This sounds a lot like what they already had planned for the resource revamp tho'.

    They really went off the rails IMO when they put that on the backburner and focused on Implants & Directives instead.
    • Up x 3
  6. Xind

    We really need that resource revamp. So many of the complaints about MAXs and vehicles would be addressed if they were not infinitely available to every player in virtually all circumstances.

    It's getting a bit excessive with the grenade spam, too. You'll just see both sides come to a choke point and just hurl grenades through a hallway and most of them kill nothing, but they keep getting chucked for some long no one can actually advance for risk of being exploded by either side.
    • Up x 1
  7. Rovertoo

    I would suggest extending this to infantry spawns as well. According to the % difference, the greater force would receive longer respawn times. This would help the less populous faction in a hex have a greater impact per kill.

    They could also potentially have an implant that reduces the respawn timer effect by such-and-such a percent. Just a random idea.

    Also, I believe with the upcoming and glorious Nanite-base revamp, things like this may be planned to some extent. Something to do with base-specific Nanite pools and Sunderer Nanite tanks.
    • Up x 1
  8. Milspec

    Happy to hear that. Resources should both matter to gameplay and be seamless to gameplay. I'd vote for an engy and medic nanite tank they have to refill at the sundy too, or refill it from a hacked terminal (stealing the enemy's nanites). I'd possibly go so far as to let stolen nanites be taken to the Sundy to refill it too by some mechanism, maybe anyone can pack a nanite tank for the purpose and get xps for the nanites?

    In the end, I also want to be able to loot enemy corpses, use their weapons and ammo, and put their unwanted gear into a nanite recycler to replenish our pools. But that's just me.
    • Up x 4
  9. OldMaster80

    If they had finished the resources system instead of wasting time with the nerf/buff war you would feel the problem much less.
    We're currently stuck in a sort of limbo where spam can last forever because unless one is a terrible player resources never end.
    And also changes to redeploy are a problem: once population in a certain territory is 50%-50% then redeploy to that location must be instantly denied.
    • Up x 1
  10. Mario900X

    Then everyone would just spawn their maxes one base back, get a sundy and ta-da! The problem comes again.
  11. Xind

    Keeping in mind, these players already have a large numerical advantage. They're not going to organize themselves with a Sunderer or Galaxy and drive MAXs to the battle they're already winning? That sounds like we've actually dramatically improved the game.

    This is a pretty solid thought. I've always thought the respawn time is a bit to fast. Still, in any conversation about respawn times, I need to suggest the revive grenade be removed.

    I miss being able to loot enemy weapons from PS1 so badly. I had a stash full of JackHammers for close encounters situations.
  12. andy_m

    As has been said already, the next phase of the resource update is going to reduce the amount of Nanites available in certain situations. I don't know the details, but I guess this will limit the spam of anything from the base under attack. Peeps might have to go all the way back to the warpgate... Gal drop anyone?
  13. BetterFasterStronger

    Best idea that ever came from this forum.
  14. MahouFairy

    IMO I don't like to see the end of MAX spams, or people complaining about them. What I would like to see in the game is where a team responds to a MAX spam by pulling their own MAX as well, and charge out in a coordinated assault. I bet it would look like a Transformers battle is PS 2. xD
    • Up x 1
  15. MahouFairy


    Nice idea, but I guess what is keeping players from looting weapons from other fractions is due to many players responding and assessing a new threat based on their weapons. E.g. Imagine a TR looting a Lasher and then start firing at the VS. The VS would probably think someone is TKing them until someone "spots" them. Also, I usually fire at wherever the source of firing comes from especially when it comes to night time. For example, when I play TR, I usually fire at wherever I see "blue sparks", because they normally mean NC.

    And to add, what happens when the soldier who got looted, gets revived by a medic? :p
  16. WUNDER8AR

    MAX crashing MAX camped bases is a commonly used tactic by outfits. But you can't expect a bunsh of randoms to perform a coordinated MAX attack vs. a couple of other randoms on the defending side who just happened to feel like pulling MAXs for an easier farm. they already have the advantage of defending. no coordination needed just camping corners.

    OT. I fully support this idea. The same should in some way apply to all vehicles. Perhaps to a lesser extend because vehicle zergs usually die rather quick these days anyways. And they can't be pulled in the safety of a spawnroom in the middle of an already existing fight but regardless. It'd be nice to see actual troop transport instead of every single guy pulling his own sundy.
    • Up x 1
  17. CipherNine

    I like the idea. The side with less players should also get discount on grenades, mines and MAXes. Perhaps force multipliers could be used to lessen the imbalance caused by uneven number of attackers and defenders.
  18. Thrustin

    I don't like the idea that something I want costs more because more people are there and you cannot do anything about it. However, I agree that force multipliers need to come with some sort of increasing cost, limiting them in the process. This is what they are supposedly going to do with the resource revamp. If I remember correctly, the plan is to introduce a nanite pool at each base and for each sunderer. Each spawn of an infantry will then consume some nanites from the place of spawning (i.e sunderer or base). The same goes for pulling vehicles or MAXs. In other words, if you are a large attacking force, you'll consume a lot of nanites from the pool for spawning and pulling maxes. To keep that force going, you'll need to organize supply runs and correspondingly protection of your transporters (called ANT in PS1) to resupply your sunderers with nanites. If you cannot do that, the attack will ultimately fail. The larger your attack force, the more you have to keep your sunderers supplied.
    If this is implemented correctly, I'm hoping there is a flattening point as to how often you have to resupply your sunderer vs the strength of the attacking force, so that eventually it is not worth the effort of trying to get a huge force going. However, the better you are organized, the bigger of a force you can keep going. This would also reduce inequal fights, promote more variation in gameplay (defending/attacking a supply vehicle), give a smaller force a chance to defend against a larger force by starving them of their nanites or break a stalemate by starving a defending force of nanites.

    On a side note, concerning the increasing prevalence of the MAX crash tactic, I seriously think MAXs should not be revivable.
  19. OldMaster80

    First of all you cannot spawn one base back if it's not under attack.
    Second, you're assuming there is 1 Max Unit and 1 Sunderer: a very vulnerable vehicle unless you have another gunner. So you're basically talking about a small organized team, which excludes all lonewolves.
    Third, spawning in another base and getting a vehicle requires a little time and strategy because the Sunderer has to be driver, it has avoid minefields, turrets, other vehicles, it has to be deployed and possibly defended. BTW this is something redeployers do not need to do as they start the fight from a safe spawn room.

    Last but not least, if devs had complete that ******* resource revamp then spawning a Max Unit and a Sunderer would mean draining resources from the base: in other words making that structure a little weaker unless allies do not refill the nanite pool. The choice to spawn one base back and get a sunderer would have a real impact on the flow of battle, because later that base could run out of nanite and change the tide of a battle.

    So, once again, YES: resources system and redeploy are a big problem and imho devs should quit wasting time with stupid nerf / buff cycles that are leading nowhere but losing more players.
  20. TraatAdmiral

    I cannot imagine what was going through the mind of whoever decided to wait for more than six months (yes, it has been more than six months) for the rest of the resource revamp. If I had to pick a single worst decision in this history of a game whose development has been marked by poor decisions, that would be it.