Missions seem to work out nicely

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Longasc, Mar 28, 2014.

  1. BengalTiger

    Yesterday, I had a wonderful tank battle between Chimney Rock, Heyoka Tech and the Bastion.

    My squad took 3 Vanguards from The Bastion and took positions in the field to the south of it. The Reds captured Chimney and went on to drive down the shooting gallery road to Heyoka Chemical.

    In the end, 2 of our original 3 tanks survived to go for a resupply (we ran out of ammo before we ran out of targets, exploding a 48+ zerg is no trivial task). When we came back, we hacked the energy bridges at Heyoka Chemical and did a "Hold my beer, watch this" style charge as they were spawn camping the Tech itself.
    The TR found us parked next to two of their Sundies and several tanks, among dozens of people, and destroyed us.

    Only this last part got us within a mission area, otherwise PlanetSide 2 decided we weren't contributing to the cause.
    Or maybe an open field battle is not risky?
    Perhaps not shelling a spawn from up close shouldn't be rewarding?

    If tanks are to be parked outside base walls to not disturb close quarters infantry battles, how do we "get in there and fight and not sit back"?
    It's not like we could leave our vehicle and go shoot it out, because an MBT happens to be quite expensive, and left alone it's really fragile (this applies to pretty much all vehicles).

    Why design a battlefield of 64 km^2, give people ground and air vehicles to allow for combat outside of walking distance from the nearest spawn, and then say "Oh, 75% of all this territory is to be used as a background, maybe sometimes for traveling, but actual fights out there are to be discouraged"?
    • Up x 4
  2. BetaGuru

    Missions are just annoying, useless distractions I wish I could turn off. I've played the game longer than an hour, I know the score. You don't need to tell me to do what I was already doing.
    • Up x 1
  3. Cirevam

    This was my experience last night. I was getting my farm on at Abandoned NS Offices and the mission waypoint kept covering up the area near the cap point and spawn room. I have thermals on my Lightning but the big swirly was still in the way. Majorly annoying.

    Also, when I ran out of ammo I would back up to the ammo tower at Mao Southeast Gate, which is right on the border of the hex. Occasionally it would switch the mission while I was rearming. I saw that Malorn increased the timer for mission switching and I was able to reload quickly enough one time to rearm before the mission switched. It still caused confusion when the guy I was running with thought we were moving elsewhere when I was really just getting more ammo.
    • Up x 1
  4. Hoki

    Why is it a problem anyways?
    If there is a boundary where missions can change, and you dance on the boundary then this should be expected.

    If the boundaries line up with lattice line boundaries then it is unavoidable as there are some lanes that really make no sense at all because the next closest base isn't next in line, which makes it another front line that is actually closer than the next hub.
    • Up x 1
  5. Lazaruz

    Even though I can see how this could be beneficial to new players, personally I'm not a fan of the new mission system, even if it gives me a 15% XP bonus. I feel that it's too intrusive, adds more unnecessary clutter on the screen and makes noises that make me feel like I'm sitting at a train station. I also don't like the game doing the "thinking" for me... so an option to turn this off would be appreciated.
  6. maxkeiser

    Just a bit more constructive feedback after a whole weekend of playing. The situations where I've found issues are as follows:

    (1) A platoon/squad member: Playing in a squad/platoon and we are taking a base (let's say an AMP station). The base is going to be ours (probably) so with 2-3 minutes on the timer the Platoon lead calls for Squad leaders ONLY to redeploy to the WG or another base etc while the platoon as a whole stays at the AMP station. The moment the Squad leaders leave the AMP station, we lose all details about the AMP station cap and start getting missions relating to where the Squad leaders are (constantly changing as he moves around). This would doubtless case massive confusion to players and means experienced players have no information about the base they are in.

    (2) Leading squad/platoon: As above. I leave the base we are capping to scout ahead/set up at the next installation and my squad immediately lose all cap info at the base they are at and instead get fed a stream of nonsensical missions according to where I am on the map (which is totally irrelevant). I've had players (new players) wondering in chat what the hell is going on and asking 'who is giving the orders?'.

    (3) In relation to (1) and (2). I've now died quite a bit through checking the map for cap information when the squad lead is somewhere else. It is absurd to have to check the map when there are enemies around. Is it intended that we should die through being forced to check the map when before all the information we needed was on the HUD?

    Please fix this.

    We need Cap info for ALL bases that we are located in.
    • Up x 2
  7. BengalTiger

    I can choose to skip the tutorial when I create a character. That said, the tutorial is probably the single most important and useful feature PS 2 didn't have when it was released.

    I have no choice but to tell the squad "Ignore the current mission" several times per hour. I can't turn it off, even though it is either redundant or even a hindrance.

    Since the mission is based on where the squad leader is, it's not a guide but a follower. When I land my Liberator at a friendly base 3 lattice links away from the front, I let my squad know that the mission to defend this base is pointless and that they should stick with the original battle plan.

    When a bad squad leader goes to a random location, the mission also goes there, whether it makes any sense or not. If the leader doesn't know what to do, the current iteration of the mission system won't tell him/her anything overly creative.
    /leader chat is often much more useful.

    Bottom line is that if the leader doesn't lead, the followers won't follow.

    There is, however, a way to get the bad leaders to be useful.

    There's this thing called an "Offensive Request" and a "Defensive Request". Putting down these markers on the map means nothing, unless it's backed up by communicating on /leader.
    How about generating a mission when one of these gets planted?
    The squad leader would get a pop-up, be able to review the suggested mission, and then press "Y" to agree and go for it, or "N" and forget about it - in which case it would disappear or become semi-transparent so to not block the view of the map.
    I'd really enjoy the ability of having a random squad attacking a base from the other flank for instance - I'd put the marker on one side of the base, and put my squad WP on the other. I'd also know for sure if anyone is actually taking the mission or not, without a debate on /leader - thus leaving that channel for matters of a larger scale than attacking a single outpost.

    Doesn't Instant Action and the Reinforcements Needed deploy system already do this job?

    If not, why?
    Why introduce yet another tool to do the same thing rather than fixing the original ones if they're deemed not working?

    Adding a functionality which is to be completely redesigned will give feedback regarding its pre-redesign form, thus completely useless.

    The single biggest problem I have as a squad leader is that people attack a base on their own - they go one by one, get killed one by one and respawn one by one. This allows the two enemies to have a consistent 2:1 battle against us, even if there's 5 infantry dudes in my squad, because they're too far away from each other to be able to support each other.

    The second biggest issue is that people, even in an organized squad after hours and hours of training formations and tactics, simply lose track of the Team Leader from time to time, because the game's pace is quite high.

    The mission system didn't change this at all. I still need to move the WP from building to building, from rock to rock and from wall to wall so that the people stick as a group and attack an objective all at once.

    My solution?

    Dividing a squad into fire teams and giving a "Team based XP bonus", like the ones vehicle crews have, for sticking within 20 m of the Team Leader would instantly get everyone to stick together. Those who wouldn't should have a little marker, similar to the one a vehicle operator gets (a little arrow, a distance indicator, and an icon above the vehicle), which would show where they need to go to find the TL.

    Important parts underlined.

    Leading a squad is playing PS 2 as a tactical game, not necessarily a shooter (check my score per hour).
    Chit chat in /leader makes PS 2 a grand strategy game as well.

    I personally dream of the day when I could draw lines on the map, rather than marking a single point. I could then mark the mountain range that is to be the line of defense, I could mark the valley we'll be using to approach the objective, the kill zone for an ambush... everything. A waypoint is very limiting, I could improvise with rally points, but it requires telling everyone what the idea is in detail. Marking an area with the word "Ambush" written on it would make things easier, especially when leading an open squad where lots of people don't use voice chat.

    Having the mission follow the WP rather than the leader's location will solve a lot of issues.

    I can also be "crafty" to counter C4 fairies and stealth Liberators, why do I also need to improvise to go around a feature to be able to get my squad to work?
    • Up x 3
  8. CDN_Wolvie

    Extremely well said, I hope many read this post and re-read it again. Truth about the fun of organization and supporting tools on different scales was administered in this post. Notice how many of the suggestions are player driven, based on improving currently existing mechanics, and given context.
  9. Astriania

    I suggested having the mission follow SL/PL waypoints as well, that would be a lot better than now.

    Tying missions to reinforcement markers could work out well if they were allocated intelligently.

    On a different note, I thought of a new way to get the cap point information back, if this terrible mission system is really going to stay. At the bottom of the map, we have the name of your current hex. Move that up a line, and below it put the cap point status and timer on another line of the same overlay. This would be smaller and harder to read than what we had pre-mission, but it would be unambiguously not associated with the mission (Malorn's objection to giving us the old UI back) and usable.
    • Up x 1
  10. Chubzdoomer

    LOL. Yes, it works so well by pointing out the next base! So useful! (At least if you can't think for yourself or read a map.)
  11. Fubbles

    Can we not have the mission system override your local region information (time left until base caps, points owned etc.). Having to open up my map constantly to see the progress on the base I am currently fighting at is extremely frustrating when before the mission system was implemented 100% of the time I could rely on this information being just above my minimap. Make it an option or make it baseline functionality, as long as I can see the important information on the base contention status where I am fighting at the time instead of having it be overridden by the mission system which currently gives me almost no useful information (I can read a map and am not a new player).

    When it comes to my ui (you may be different) and the information it offers I would like form to follow function.
  12. Syphers

    it's kinda pointless unless you're a newbie but it add a nice touch I think
  13. Kerempooh

    Hey devs, just make the cap point info you're on visible at all times.

    This thing we have now is just pointless. Whatever benefits of the missions system, they are overshadowed by this nonsensical decision to actively deny vital battlefield information to the players unless they conform to the system that you've yourself admitted is still a work in progress. It makes no sense to go out of your way to aggravate your players against the new system that otherwise really shows promise. The way it is now I can't see anything good about it because it is annoying to no end not being able to see what you're doing out of some glitch in the system or just because your squad leader decided to pull an ESF to give some air support.

    By removing local cap information you didn't reduce confusion, as was your intention, but increased it exponentionally. The local cap info was an old tried and true feature that no one complained about ever since the game went live. You should have kept it as a fallback system if something goes wrong with the new one. If it got removed some time after missions became feature-complete and tolerably bug-free, you wouldn't have heard a pip from the playerbase. Now, however... it is making players frustrated with your new system out of no real fault of the missions system itself - it is creating a bad impression and thereforere interfering with objective player feedback.. I can't really discuss its merits and suggest improvements to the system which comes off as arbitrarily in-your-face annoying.

    Just make local cap info visible at all times and that's it. As missions system becomes streamlined and feature-complete, you'll be more than welcome by me to completely do away with the old one.
    • Up x 1
  14. Longasc

    By now I must correct my initially good impression, people already mentioned several issue that feel more Alpha than Beta and I hope they get ironed out soon. It's just giving the system a bad rep early on.
  15. Malorn

    You can only skip the tutorial if it is not your first character on the account. The first character doesn't have the option to skip.

    We will be changing the system to disassociate capture info display with current mission. Don't have an ETA yet, but we're working on it.
    • Up x 11
  16. AMARDA

    Thanks for listening to us on this issue.
    • Up x 1
  17. Kerempooh

    Excellent! Thank you thank you thank you! I'll happily shut up now and do my best to take a closer, less jaundiced look at this new addition to the game!
  18. zukhov

    I totally agree with the OP. Its a good system and does work to get players from base to base, rather than the usual running around wondering what to do and random redeploying that normally happens.
  19. Crator

    Yesterday, I was offered a mission to go defend a base that no enemy had a link to. I reported the issue in-game.
  20. Malorn

    That is also getting fixed, hopefully this week. The capture-points-flipping-by-themselves bug looks like it is also affecting missions and causing the defend missions to not end properly.
    • Up x 2