Need more limitations on deployment

This is what makes sense.

I'd add that redeploy should be usable from the warpgates right after logging into the game with a 60 minute hard timer on re-use.

Increasing sunderer survivability is only a good idea if you ensure sunderer locations are universally more vulnerable to vehicles (no deploying inside tower walls, a pass on removing all the most defensive locations). If every sunderer location is vulnerable to tank and ESF flanking, more HP might make sense.

Attacks on sunderers can be reacted to:

• Maintain air control. (You're the attacker, after all -- do you really not care about your sunderers dying to Libs?)
• Deploy recon darts/radar. Intercept players.
• Maintain ground control so a ground vehicle can't just flank your sunderer.

Depending on the scale of the battle, there're nearly always enough threats that all of those playstyles are fun.

Yes, but I'm not necessarily suggesting "20 mins of driving" logistics. I'm suggesting "less than 2 mins of flying" logistics.

Which is a huge difference, gameplay-wise, than "15 seconds of redeploying for an instant teleport anywhere" logistics.

Yeah sorry, I disagree.

It is really bad... and boring... if you want to support a base or outpost and need to redeploy 10 times in order to get to it or pull a vehicle and drive/fly just for the sake of transport.

I loved how they changed it, I think it should remain and I laugh at how ninja capping is close to impossible now. The old system was crap, good riddance.

Redeploying 10 times was always the wrong choice, so it's not really a relevant argument. You often didn't have to redeploy at all: you simply grabbed an air vehicle and flew there.

"Ninja-capping" as you term it was outmaneuvering your opponents. It was an element of strategy that is now removed.

Yeah, let's play the Transport simulator. Much better, right? Let's waste minutes of travel in order to get seconds of combat.

Why would they even be in the base still?
If defenders can't redeploy there, then the attackers have no need to remain there, they simply cap the point, block the roads/airways to it and wait for the timer to run down without a fight ever taking place in the base they cap.

You clearly weren't around for launch or beta. People would be taken to the fights by other players, because it was fun. All they had to do was finally pay galaxy pilots the certs they deserved, and we wouldn't be complaining about this crap today. Transport drivers still get minimal cert gain. It's a travesty.

#GALUPDATE2014

Cut the spawn time to zero seconds, but only allow people to spawn at territories connected to the contested territory. That keeps people from having to spend too much time traveling, but also would encourage pulling vehicles to counter rather than just zerg from the spawn room.

What a load of BS, Transport simulator. Pure hyperbole, as if the current state of vehicles in PS2 ever approached the nuances of even PS1 and that wasn't even remotely a Transport simulator.

Unless of course you aren't just being needlessly ridiculous and just don't know what a transport simulator actually is. You know, things that use component maintenance, fuel, road surface conditions, traffic laws and enforcement, speed limits ... sheesh, this is still a fantastical sci-fi game that flips all kinds of actual simulator problems the bird.

Besides, this is PS2, you're not wasting minutes getting to combat, you're potentially getting into combat with opposing factions the second you fly or drive out of the warpgate regardless of if they actually own any bases nearby.

For your information, Sir, I shall let you know that I have played the Truck Simulator.

... and I died a little inside afterwards.

Disagree with the OP completely. The game is fine as it is. Any more limitations will just drive ludicrous amounts of players away, removing the 'massive' from PS2 completely.

NO changes needed.

yeh ironic timing on all these deployment post /rolls eyes Deployment is fine.. any removal of it would kill gameplay and its just as simple as that.. hardcore super players might get a kick out of it.. but planetside 2 cant survive on those 12 people who want it to take a year to get to a base under attack... and since you cant deploy youd die and then what ? another run from the warpgate ? wow that sounds boring as hell. So these big epic battles we have now would basically never happen. Plus, you wouldn't win vs attackers unless you had = or greater numbers droping on a base.. even then.. soon as you die, that's it.. end of fight.. anyone asking for that kinda gameplay is not properly thinking it through.

O yeh OP, one more thing #Buzzis****ingwrong

Then you should know better than to use it as describing a suggestion in regards to improving the redeploy spawning beyond the Platoon Leader telling their platoon to redeploy every 5 minutes and zerg some attackers that had to run, drive, or fly to the place they are attacking and have their spawns killed when it only takes 1 of those potentially 48 players to destroy those attacker spawns.

On a strategic level, PS2 is respawn wack-a-mole right now.

Instead, it should be more fun to hang around a base as you prepare defenses which should be rewarding, the advantage of being a defender should be team work with other players and exp from upgrading the defences. https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/the-spawn-and-base-overhaul.189895/

And did you stop for a second to consider that maybe the majority of the players actually prefer it like that?

PS2's consistently diminishing player numbers put paid to that notion, your appeal to the authority of the majority already left to go play other games either for more or less of a epic vehicle strategic level of play.

PS2 was always going to appeal to gamers based on what it uniquely bring to the table, its niche if you will, rather than be a weak imitation of gameplay that exists elsewhere.

If you are suggesting that the majority of the players that remain prefer it that way, unless you are an elected rep of that majority or have some census like data on people's opinions of the player base to point to, you're just making **** up. If anything, I would counter with all the vote ups I recall on the Roadmap calling for more of a nuanced strategic level across several issues, not less.

So, yeah, I've stopped for more than a ******* second to consider it.

Planetside 2 barely manages as many players via Steam as Kerbal Space Program. Meanwhile, another F2P FPS game - Team Fortress 2 - has more players than ever before. It is constantly GROWING in size. Why? Because the developers are actually putting effort into the game and making it attractive for new players to play and old players to come back.

Maybe the 'keep doing what we're doing' approach isn't working. NOBODY is going to come back to Planetside because 'the game is just how it was when I quit!'.

The lack of intellectual depth required to play this game is choking it. Making the entire game 'everyone's a winner!' by putting one-way forcefields on spawn rooms, letting anyone deploy anywhere at any time, making tanks one-man affairs, all that **** has made the game amazingly mediocre. I could go on for hours about all the great features PS1 had, I can't think of a single thing about PS2 that's worth getting excited about.

http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=218230q440&from=0

Alright you two, if you are all about the strategic stuff then why aren't you playing ARMA?

There are many types of FPS games with different elements involved. Planetside 2 is about getting into massive epic fights with vehicles involved.

And what, there is no strategy? I've seen plenty and continue to see plenty about. It's how close call alerts are won.

If you are determined to not like the game instead of taking it for what it is.. youl never be happy. Frostiken says the lack of intellectual depth required to play this game is choking it.. Its a shooter, tell me what shooter requires strategy game skills and fps aim ? BF4, nope ,Counter strike ? nope. and certainly not old school shooters like quake and unreal tournament..

take battlefield 4 as example.. how hard is it to get to fight ? does it force you to spawn at your main base and use vehicles to get to points ? nope it allows rapid deployment in the name of fun.. Planetside 2 may not be company of heroes style strategy but out of every other shooter it is the most strategic.. if people quit playing its usually because of the difficulty of going against br 100s or finding a fight.. I would suspect the redeploy had nothing to do with it.

Gee I don't know - oh wait, I have plenty of time spent on ArmA. I don't know, maybe it's because Planetside 1 was a kickass, unique game and PS2 was a dumbed-down joke made to appeal to people who think this:

Clearly that's working out, what with PS2 now have fewer than half the players that Tribes: Ascend managed when it launched. And we all know what happened to Tribes: Ascend. It was what, one year before they pulled the plug on it because of dwindling players? Yes, let's just keep making the game to appeal to people who just want to watch a Michael Bay Video Game as things explode everywhere. EPIC! ITS SO EPIC! EEEEPIIIXXXXXXXXX FFIGHTS! AND VEHICLES! SO EPIC, BRO!