Outfit leaders deserve a salary

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by karlooo, Jun 26, 2021.

  1. karlooo

    The leaders that form communities are what keeps this game alive, it's a fact. It's not an easy job, possibly they even voluntarily work harder when compared to what these game designers do at their job lol, but the question is what are they doing? They never ffuking communicate with us.
    It's like as if they don't even have a goal. For example, their artist added some more details into the C4, like as if that is what is required, and details into whatever....It's like as if they are bored, have nothing to do, so they just add detail after detail after detail, so they can have something to do lol.
    The containment facility. Why are there hundreds of asset inside, with a bunch of random extrusions? How are players supposed to coordinate in that mess? The beauty is in simplicity....WTF is this base? Performance another thing, it will be unstable.
    The beauty is in simplicity, the beauty is in simplicity, the beauty is in simplicity....OK? Do you understand, game designers?

    Alright. Whenever I have the sensation to dive back into Planetside 2, it's never because of an update, I try not to read the patch notes anymore because it makes me feel sick.
    It is the amazing experiences I've had with the community that pulls me back into the game. They are the ones who should receive the salary.

    Lastly, the joke is that if the game stayed the same as it was in lets say 2012, today the player count would most likely be the same as it is now. All that these updates did to the game was downgrade, bastardize and ****t on some of its unique aspects.
    • Up x 1
  2. Demigan

    In 2012 the game was a hellhole.

    ESF noseguns were as powerful as Hornets, a Lolpod strike was more devastating than a tankbuster run against vehicles and could eliminate an entire platoon spawning at a Sunderer by shooting below it. Tanks, especially Prowlers, had AOE's that completely shut down infantry. The original AP rounds had AOE's closer to current HESH rounds than the current AP AOE's and HE could clear an entire point for no skill. Tower bases had the hallway of death where defenders had to exit into a 3-way murderhole. ZOE MAX's would still wreck all fights they are used. The Claymore would still perform 3 or 4 times as well as the NC/VS counterparts. The prowler would still be able to Anchor in a ranged flank position and completely annihilate entire vehicle columns alone. The PPA Magrider would annihilate entire platoons trying to pass through large passages. LPPA Scythes would do the same. The Saron would still be an anti-tank sniper doubling as a 2 or 3 hit kill on infantry with enough accuracy to hit them at 100+m. Zephir Libs would kill entire squads in a single pass and be able to kill 1 to 3 vehicles quickly, the Dalton would do well enough against infantry and functioned as a light C4 round, even misses were deadly to vehicles if it landed near enough. Infantry had even less weapons available to deal with air, in fact only the Bursters existed and early lock ons were even more useless than current ones. Certain infantry weapons would still be too useful jack-of-all-trades at most ranges, infiltrators would still be almost invisible to both allies and enemies without faction-unique cloak and decloak sounds. A fury battlebus would still absolutely wreck any other vehicle, heavies would still sport almost twice the health when using a shield and grenades would clear rooms.
    If we allow new weapons then the Phoenix would still OHK infantry on a hit, Harassers would dominate all vehicles with ease, AV turrets would kill stuff beyond render range, Lancers would dominate vehicles at range as well etc etc.

    Are you really sure that all these ultra-cheese things are good? Before you say it, "they all cancel out" does not count.
    • Up x 2
  3. karlooo

    Now that is cool, that's ****** cool.
    A very long time ago, I still remember how our Sunderer spawn with 20 players defending, got absolutely annihilated by 2 coordinated Marauder Harassers, that shot us from a higher ground....And I loved it. It was so cool, and I miss it.

    Nowadays it's all about numbers, spam and it doesn't matter if you flank because you deal no damage anyways.
    It's all about numbers but mainly infantry because the other aspects, such as tank warfare, construction, light air are now non-existent. You don't even have to drive to the objective anymore, you can drop a Sunderer from space and put a Router spawn inside a building....Why?

    The "problems" that the game had and ironically still have are super easy to fix.
    -Liberator and Harasser are just badly designed vehicles that do not fit into the game, they need to be redesigned. Very easy to do as well, all you have to do is think.
    -Battle Sunderers, easy fix. Vehicles with proximity repair system will not heal each other and as well cancel each other out. And the repair modification should be larger and more easier to spot.
    -Infantry lacking long range AT weapons, easy, give the engineer and HA a deployable manually guided AT launcher that has range (with the option of adding camouflages). Need more guns??? The ANT can come in, deploy and with it's Cortium place small mannable defenses to cover certain positions. We are starting to shape the construction role now (But for vehicles and construction to fit in, lattice bases need a redesign)
    -Spam? (Air, tank) another thing that can be fixed with the outfit assets which for some reason took the devs years, they added it too late and butchered it anyways, with cancer weaponry such as the bastion and Orbital Strike and other pointless items.
    As I mentioned before, the community is the pillar of the game, not some rando continuously shooting at enemies in TI Alloys. The community should receive funds for heavy and expensive equipment, such as the tanks with limits.
    -Infiltrator, easy fix, give the unit 400 HP, it's an infiltrator and not frontline shock troop!!!!! Give it interesting
    infiltrating abilities.

    These suggestion are off the top of my head. It took me seconds.

    But you know what else must be done? The Lattice bases and map in general needs a redesign....Why are the devs working on Oshur, giving us the same crap. If they want to add in role playing aspects into the game, why do they still keep the redeployside, call of duty aspects, it cannot work together.
    WTF are they doing anyways? Why don't they communicate? Why are they acting?

    This will give the other PS2 developers some objective, instead of working on random nonsense.
  4. Demigan

    Most players aren't masogists and would recognize that uncoordinated Harassers would have boned you as well. That was kinda the point.

    Nowadays it might be about numbers, back then it was about using the cheese. 2 Marauder Harassers could defeat 20 players at a Sunderer and there was little the 20 infantry could really do. At best they might scare them off and then be annihilated again.

    With precious few players enjoying gameplay completely in favor of providing a hellscape for one player and easymode for the next there is no reason to go "back to the good old days".

    It's also nice to see you proclaim that nothing really much changed between 2012 and now in terms of balance, but then you immediately jump to defend the 2012 wet crap balance when challenged.
  5. karlooo

    Ok, you are not reading (as always), conversation over. Wrel..
  6. RabidIBM

    The addition of armouries was meant to be just that, something to compensate outfit leaders for their contribution by giving them extra toys. Unfortunately they stayed true to pattern, implemented a draft and moved on.
  7. Pikachu

    I remember that one. I payed money for my first AA missile launcher because I got tired of the airplanes, only to find it useless. Back then missiles did not have the hidden speed boost they have now so they usually failed to hit an enemy that was after-burning away.

    I also remember the craptastic tower design you mentioned. :D Vehicles spawning in the middle of the room, crushing team mates all the time.

    Drop pods landing inside solid structures allowing players to shoot out but enemies not to shoot in.

    Or that short time when saron and enforcer killed infantry with 1 shot, making kobalt even more useless.

    Fighting TR in a tank meant you would get a swarm of angry red missiles at you.
    • Up x 1
  8. Warspine

    If outfit leaders deserve a salery, then stealthers desearves a bill or some kind of fine.
  9. Demigan

    Heh, more than half of the outfit leaders deserve a fine by the way they break the game down.
  10. karlooo

    Fine who? The players that try to play strategically already get fined.
    The game supports zergs and nothing else...I've recently played on a platoon with 2 squads and one of the best commanders. And on Indar for 1 hour we couldn't capture a single base by ourselves. Indar is all about zerging in one direction.
  11. Demigan

    The players who try to play the actual game, rather than the badly tacked on "stragetic" elements are the ones being fined. Their gameplay is being destroyed both inside the game and outside the game by these players. The "stragetic" gameplay is what calls for zergs and ultra-simplistic strategies like Gal drops which are all designed to shut down any gameplay of the other side. Any strategy that prevents any counter to it other than zerging yourself should never be a solution in any game And outside of the game these same "stragetic" players are asking for the actual gameplay to be eroded and destroyed. TI Alloys being the latest example.

    To say that the "stragetic" players are fined because they can't fight Zergs is ludicrous, they are the Zergs. The only places in the game reasonably safe from these people are places that are simply not easy to capture and allow players to offer resistance against the pathetic "stragetic" players.
    The fact that any place that offers resistance is requested to be demolished and removed from the game because players seek safe haven from the cancerous "strategy" that this game offers is hypocritical. You are the strategists right? Use that strategy and break those bases! Except ofcourse the only "strategy" you guys actually venerate is the tic-tac-toe difficulty of what base you can outpop next on the lattice.

    I have no respect for people who venerate a broken system like this, and players that actively seek to destroy other systems to force players into their broken piece of shi t deserves less respect than that. Rewarding these players is the last thing we need to do, asking them to pay more as reparations for their active destruction of the game.
  12. karlooo

    I just told you, I was playing in a platoon of 2 squads, with one of the best commanders who understands the game perfectly and we could do NOTHING on Indar for 1 hour. Every single part of the game favors zergs, super limited lattice links, low vehicle damage, allowing everyone to purchase tanks, Galaxies, why can everyone purchase these expensive machines?? It all favors numbers.

    TI Alloys was just badly designed, it's a fight over nothing, the center of the map could have been designed way better. That was the devs decision to remove it, because it seems that they are not smart enough to fix it.
  13. Demigan

    Well all this tells me is:
    - your "leader" wasn't remotely close to the best, or what is considered the best is simply laughably stupid nowadays (and with how the tools encourage no-brain simplistic tactics its a small wonder).
    - it once again reinforces the truth that current "leadership" tools are inadequate, useless and counterproductive as you couldn't even cooperate with the players next to you.
    - that you rely on zerging, and couldn't zerg hard enough.
    - that you think that limiting the vehicles somehow magically helps solve this, even though it would just reward zerging even more as you are punished less for your losses than the non-zerging players.

    Again and again the only conclusion we can draw is that current leadership tools are breaking down the game, we need to alter them, alter the rewards, alter the player perception of current "leadership", add the actual hard core of teamplay which is being able to cooperate and communicate with anyone beyond "lets fire in the same direction".
    • Up x 1
  14. karlooo

    *Limit machines and increase damage

    We have the same opinion pretty much on this topic, but you can't even give out a concept of how it should be fixed. At least I have some ideas to start with.
    You know why I was a construction main, I wanted to counter zergs. But you can guess in what state it is now.
  15. Demigan

    I have given quite literally dozens of ideas. I've also pointed out how limiting vehicle access and increasing their damage will only benefit the Zerg. We quite literally had limited vehicles and higher damage on vehicles at launch and all it did was sustain Zergs and punish defenders. The day they made vehicles less expensive by pooling all resources into one was the day zergs got it tougher to sustain themselves as it became easier for non-zerglings to get vehicles and counter the Zerglings, however much the system and base layouts still favor the Zergs.

    Again, we more or less had the system you propose and it did the exact opposite of what you proposed.
    • Up x 1
  16. karlooo

    That is such a narrow vision. You never think outside the box.
    You need to start somewhere and then you can improve the idea. There is no easy solution.
  17. Demigan

    I am all for looking into how an idea can be made to work, I often do. However your idea has already been in the game and it failed. We did see the merit of making the vehicles cheaper and easier to access. Why waste time limiting vehicle access and making them even more unfun for the remaining players to fight? It has so many disadvantages, many inherent to the idea of limiting and strengthening vehicles that thinking outside the box can only solve by not doing it. Your idea limits experimentation as vehicle usage becomes more limited, it prevents players from playing the gameplay they want, increases the chance that one side starts steamrolling after the other lost vehicles once, has the potential to make Outfits and platoons actively destroy friendly vehicles to gain access to a limited vehicle pool...
    Or if we think out of the box we can do the exact opposite, which would also make the disadvantages do the exact opposite. Make vehicles cheaper and more in line with infantry (preferably by giving infantry more and better tools to deal with vehicles). Make vehicles easier and safer to access and use. It will not require any thinking outside of the box just to make the basic premise work and has a much higher chance of success. I've made threads and put over 2 dozen idea's in other threads as well about how to accomplish this in various ways. Which is a lot more than "limit them and make them more powerful".
    • Up x 1