please DO NOT add no deploy zones for defenders.

Discussion in 'Test Server: Discussion' started by Liewec123, Apr 7, 2017.

  1. Liewec123

    TL;DR is what the title says, the rest of this is a fairly frustrated rant.

    recently i made a thread about how you keep constantly nerfing the defensibility of bases,
    it has made defending bases feel very difficult and simply not fun.
    which has caused the majority of players to not bother defending anymore and now everyone seems to just zerg around rolling over the laughably easy bases.

    about the only tactic which i've found that actually sometimes works at repelling attackers is when i go ahead of the zerg and park a shield sunderer at a defensible position near the capture point.

    and now i see that you continue your apparent hatred for any kind of a defence to be made by removing this last viable tactic...
    will you please stop nerfing the defenders?!
    you've already caused the game to devolve into a zergfest were everyone simply snowballs over bases with 80% overpop, why do you continue to nerf and nerf and nerf every possible way that a base can be defended?

    in place of a sturdy deployed sunderer with a shield and 2 strong guns we're getting the ability to drop an easily destroyed spawn point, and worse, you have to remain medic in order to maintain it, and worse, you're giving them to the attackers too, so now the 80% overpop will actually be able to spawn inside of our base,
    i used to laugh and mock that you'd eventually nerf bases to a stage were the attackers are actually spawning inside the base...
    fantastic work DBG, fantastic.
    • Up x 4
  2. Citizen H

    No Deploy Zones for Defenders will be the best change in a long time. Currently, a battle lasts until the defending force is utterly outpopped or the attackers give up. That's not good gameplay. Fights are weighted too heavily in the defenders favor by giving them a spawn room with an unlimited, uninterruptible flow of reinforcements AND an spawn that can be right on top of the Control Point, defended by their entire fighting force, that can be already in place before the fight even begins.

    The next step in making things truly fair would be to add SCUs to every base, which they absolutely should do.
    • Up x 2
  3. LordKrelas

    Best change... so that defenders can't even park a sundy in their own base, without it being entirely exposed to the enemy attack.
    When the hell is a fight in the defender's favor?

    Most bases don't have the control point(s) near the spawn room, and even then they have a ton of choke points that only the defenders need to use; And easily camped by attackers, and by bloody HE tank shells.
    Teleporters in sight of the same spots that can camp the ever living hell out of the spawn room.
    With no angle on said shooters.

    The opponent has Sunderers, and vehicle supremacy, making it near endless numbers of spawn points at differing positions...
    While the defense has... one.. easily farmed exit, and if lucky, two easily farmed exits for a solid singular spawn point.

    SCUs on every base, so a swarm can instantly cut off a base's ability to even have defenders.
    Add in infiltrators & intelligence, and entire lattices losing spawn capability base by base ahead of the Zerg.

    Also, isn't a defense meant to be on the point, and base defenses to be a defense?
    Isn't that literally meant to be the Home-field, this-is-our-base advantage? To already be there?
    Otherwise, Defenders are literally just Attackers from the other side engaging what might as well be a neutral position...
    • Up x 4
  4. Liewec123

    seriously, what game are you playing?
    we seem to be playing different games....
    • Up x 3
  5. IrishInsanity

    I disagree with the OP. Nobody likes to attack because it isn't any fun. Some bases are damn near impossible to take because defenders can plant sunderers anywhere at any time within the nodepoy zone rule that attacks have to work against. It's almost a guarantee that as defenders that all you have to do is kill the attackers sunderers to win. As a defender you already even know where the attackers placed their sunderers because of the no deploy zone radius and the obvious sunderer garages.

    Defenders having to play be the same nodeployzone rules as attackers will be a better change from the way the game is currently played. Ultimately redeployside, "defender meta," needs to be removed for planetside 2 to have any chance of having a decent future.
  6. TR5L4Y3R

    so in other words defenders being ablsolutely incapable of reacting to a base attack in time .. alright ..
  7. IrishInsanity

    In other words we want a game where players stay in the lattice LANES. Right people just spawn hop all over, there no rolling battle in a LANE. It's going to take a lot of small changes to fix but this game can be better then it is now.
  8. Citizen H

    I'll defend my stance that the game is currently heavily weighted in favor of defenders.

    Right off the bat, there's no such thing as a sneak attack. You can mouse over the map and see that an enemy force is massing towards a base.

    Then you can have defenders appear there from across the other side of the map in seconds.

    Attackers are entirely dependent on spawn Sundys, and since the No Deploy Zones only affect them, it narrows down where defenders even have to look for them. Usually bases have two reasonable spots to deploy.

    It's exceedingly easy for defenders to pull vehicles either from that base or an adjacent one to seek and destroy the attackers' spawns. This forces the attackers into being sandwiched between entrenched defenders shooting at them from inside the base and being savaged by defender vehicles shooting at them from all around the base.

    To shut down an attack, all defenders have to do is destroy the attacker's spawn at any point before the timer ticks down. Then it becomes a simple task to retake the actual control point and clear the base.

    But for an attack to be successful, the attackers must utterly outpop the defenders and keep them suppressed inside the spawn for the full capture time, while continually defending the base from enemy vehicles firing on them from the outside AND protecting their own spawns AND keep the control point itself under control.

    The current design tasks the attackers to divide their efforts on FOUR fronts while defenders only have to do ONE thing: kill the attackers spawns.

    This is WHY massive outpopping has become the only viable tactic in this game; it's the only way to overcome the defenders' intrinsic advantage.
    • Up x 1
  9. Liewec123

    so go ahead and explain how overpopping occurs...
    as you so kindly pointed out for me, "defenders can spawn from across the map" to balance out population,
    so if bases are so darn easy to defend as you claim they are, why the hell is borderline NOONE wanting to do it?

    which is more likely?
    1.allies simply don't enjoy XP and victory by defending the "easy to defend base".
    2. bases ARE NOT easy to defend which is why even given the option to go there from anywhere on the map, people decide not too.

    the repeated nerfs to base defence have made it an utterly futile and unfun waste of time, hence noone wants to do it resulting in 80% overpops.

    if you were correct and base defence was viable, you would not have 80% overpops, defenders would be spawning in.
    if i'm correct however, and attempting to defend a bases is an unfun waste of time, 80% overpops is absolutely what you'd expect.
    and oh is what is happening.

    don't give me this "overpop is the only working tactic!" nonsense, because if that were true and bases were defensible, overpop wouldn't be an option because the game lets defenders spawn directly to the base to even out population imbalance.
    the fact that you see such hilarious overpopulation from attackers while noone wants to play defence has only one explanation.
    and it isn't that people don't enjoy easy xp and victory.
  10. LaughingDead

    I'm betting 50$ on this is prep for when they buff sunderers so they are immortal when deployed.
    Forward spawn and increasing sunderer survivability, both things were mentioned in the PTS update, they want us to all swap over to forward spawns even if we say no, we do not like that gameplay.

    I for one, actually like sunderers being deployed inside a base, it creates both a faster spawn for defenders and makes a fortification inside a base that actually means something, it's probably also why they nerfed furies on everything instead of just the harasser on previous PTS updates. It's simple, they don't want vehicles to be involved with base combat. That includes sunderers for defenders.

    I hate being a broken record about devs hate vehicles but there is literally no other reason I see for this, forward spawns can mix with sunderer defense, neither are mutually exclusive to one another, you can easily have attackers rely on forward spawns against a defenders sunderer, but apparently we aren't supposed to have that for some reason? Granted, I'm also against forward spawn in this game, I think it's just a bad mechanic when you already have medics and a 30 second respawn window and vehicles that spawn you. But limiting defenders fortifications seems stupid considering how little the fortifications can actually be, no sundi can park within a distance between another sundi, off the top of my head I believe it's 25-40 meters, so worst thing attackers have to deal with is a deploy shield bus with bad furies or kobalts between 30 meters of attacking, which is a perfectly fine roadblock, putting effort into attacking instead of just revolving around the point.
    • Up x 4
  11. BadCoding

    Mobile spawner gameplay sucks if it's a constant and doesn't involve logistics. Either you're outnumbered as defender or attacker. That's what it comes down to, at least while the enemy plays 'find the spawners' and doesn't just allow being overrun or zerged.

    Who here wants to fight over bases in a way of taking control over them part by part, thus unlocking or losing spawn options inside that base instead of playing the 'find their spawners' game ?
    Who here would like to be able to fortify bases so that there's a choice between pushing forward or fortifying a base (and I don't just mean to the outside but also inside) ?
    I'd like to get more interesting bases with far more variety of things to do for all classes, defense systems, motion detectors, hackable stuff (not just by infils but by everyone), things enemies can repair after destroying it to benefit them, more interesting in-base gameplay where you can pry different sub parts of a base from the rightful owners bit by bit.

    PS: Population is the #1 issue ahead of all other concerns.
    • Up x 1
  12. DrostenVS

    No base design should ever favor the attacker.

    Original PlanetSide had battles over bases that lasted hours without the attackers ever getting to the point or generators/spawn tubes. Bases had to be run out of power and go neutral for the fight to end and if the defenders kept getting ANTs in, the battle lasted even longer.

    The problem with PlanetSide 2 is that there are too many bases and they did away with the smaller towers that were in the original PlanetSide. Less bases/towers meant that each one was valuable and there were less lattice links to create the ping pong crap we deal with in PS2. Also, the sanctuaries and home continents meant that you were often fighting only one faction at a time.
    • Up x 4
  13. Diilicious

    I dont know what game some of you are playing where the defenders are at the advantage but it isnt planetside 2, or what substance you are using where you think that bases should be easier to capture for the attacker, OR that nobody likes to attack anymore (lol what???)

    the defenders should get to keep the ability to deploy a sunderer INSIDE THIER OWN BASE.
    • Up x 2
  14. Azarga

    I don't like the idea of limiting deploy zones for defenders.

    Most bases have disgustingly illogical confusing layouts, not to mention certain spawn rooms placed in pits for the convenience of camping attackers.

    Smartly placed Sundie is at least some remedy for that eh.. "design choice".
    • Up x 1
  15. CaptCran

    If they withhold the no deploy zones for defenders, DBG should implement cortium silos for the bases that allow a certain number of respawns of troops, vehicles, etc. Just like in planetside 1 you need to tend to a base to keep the defense up. Same with biolabs. Cortium silos once depleted the base goes neutral. It was a good system, wish they would bring it back.

    • Up x 1
  16. TR5L4Y3R

    ??? why? if there isn´t any way to place spawntubes or vehicle/aircraftterminals what´s the point? you would make defending a base even worse especialy for a underpoped defending side ..
    • Up x 2
  17. LordKrelas

    Old thread, well done.

    Ah yes, 1 ESF or Liberator and the ANTs for that base fail to exist once seen.
    While the side with more people, can have more ants, Aircraft and forces to keep a base running, and to destroy the other side.
    More ants, so more cort, more aircraft means easier disruption, and more forces means easier defense & attack through numeric might.

    While the lower pop, has to split people into Ants, defend against aircraft, maybe field aircraft (needing more of them as well) to destroy the enemy's more numerous ants, while having to defend & attack with less people than the other side in the first place.

    To defend, you must have enough people to field the Ants, and to defend the actual base.
    And in order to have the ants work, you need either massive amounts of AA, large numbers of ants to mitigate this problem, or enough aircraft to reliably intercept the enemy's.
    You notice how everything with this concept of yours, is on the side with more people?

    Even if they burn more cort, they will have the numbers to keep up the production.
    Which easily causes more losses for their opponent facing 2:1 battles.
    With less people, the lower pop has less cort replenishment which means less equipment.
    Or they have a lack of forces even further, resulting in more causalities....

    Even better with the neutral bit;
    Run aircraft around a base, kill every ANT; Base goes neutral.
    Now you send in any ground force, with the original defenders having lost their spawn points, sunderers, and any defensive systems.
    If they pull AA, well unless they have more people to do so, they just Offered up tons of specialized vehicles, maxes & infantry for slaughter by anything not AA.
    As well, the loss of Singular aircraft is nothing compared to the price of the numerous AA units being destroyed.
    If they don't pull AA, not only does the base lose their entire supply chain, but anything in sight of the aircraft.
    If the base needs 3 ants per hour, the enemy just needs equal or greater number of light aircraft; And just to intercept the number needed; With each ant used, the enemy is down a pilot, vehicle operator, or infantryman from the defenses.

    Now if you have numbers, you can run AA or enough aircraft of your own to secure your ants.
    With it, you also can field more Ants, allowing your side to mitigate the loss of some ants by using more without a loss of firepower.
    Enemy has 3 pilots, you can field 6 ants; if you only need 3 to get in, you can't lose unless they manage to kill 2 per pilot before the next wave of ants.
    Unless you spam ants, you are not even likely to be equal in pop offense-wise to the enemy.
    And even then, you then have equal offense-power, but a superior economy.

    Numeric advantage becomes God even further.
    So just no.
  18. DemonicTreerat

    Count me in for the "take the damn no deploy zone idea and put it back into a dark closest" group. And it can take the ones saying bases are too hard to take with it for good measure. Stupid idea that shows that whoever came up with it obviously is solely worried about the "leet" crowd that only does 12 vs 12 (or more often 12 versus 4).

    If anything bases need to be more defensible, either by reworking them completely or giving us the option to - without having to be engineers - to put down basic field works. Sand bag walls that are just high to keep ones head safe if crouched, barbed wire to slow down heavies charging through it, anti-tank hedgehogs to bring rushing vehicles to a halt, the ability to build turrets inside bases - all would go a long ways to making bases actually defensible without needing to outnumber ones attackers. And once a base is sufficiently fortified that it can hold out against attackers for a reasonable amount of time just maybe we'll see badly underpopulated factions able to go on the offensive instead of having to throw everything they got into holding just a few bases near their warpgate.
    • Up x 2
  19. Avenhold

    Not that one more opinion in the ring will do much good, but I'm taking a breather from work anyhow (and haven't had a chance to rant yet) so here goes:

    Everyone who plays this game inevitably comes face to face with either an overwhelming redeploy from the defenders or an overwhelming zerg from the invaders. Such is the current state of things. I personally find it hard to make suggestions one way or another as such ideas generally end up requiring more than simply that single mechanic of the game to be changed- this in turn demanding more resources that Daybreak may simply not have available at the time. Thus far we've made due, albeit sometimes barely. That being said, it is good that this subject is in open forums and being debated so it can be further refined (whatever shape that may take).

    From all my long years in Planetside 2, I can assure that I've been on both sides of this table. Over time I've adapted my time spent online to fit my area of interest when it comes to the game: by looking for the scale of fights that I enjoy and training myself or by seeking help from more experienced soldiers. I can safely say that I've fought and died over every blade of grass, flake of snow and grain of sand of Auraxis (you have to watch out for those blades of grass, they are very sharp). Now to the point, I promised an opinion but unfortunately I don't know how to make a spoiler tag to hide it so I will lay my thoughts bare bellow.

    **A reminder that what follows is only an opinion**
    As explained before by other members here on the forums the problem does not lie in having defenders being capable of actively defending a base- that being said I do absolutely despise when you and your mates have trudged through the blood and the muck to capture a base only to be viciously and without question stamped out by your enemy sending what seems like their entire army, at a moment's notice, against your squad(s). The issue of "Redeployside 2" affects the entirety of the game so I'll leave that topic for now. Defending forces must be able to brace their holdings against the invaders and arbitrarily imposing a restriction field on additional spawn locations via Sunderers would be unquestionably crippling to mounting any form of defense (short of trying to pour of the spawn room shields (like ants) only to be greeted by a combined hail of small arms and mechanized firepower (also magnifying glasses)- all of which every single player on this game has suffered through). Furthermore, stranding the additional logistics, that are pivotal in holding your fort against those seething tide of angry planetfolks looking to riddle you full of holes, outside, would make them instantly vulnerable and quite literally impossible to defend. If you thought it was bad when the enemy team was rolling on you with a -biblical MBT horde- that already had jenky ways of maneuvering inside the relative safety of your walled off compound? Try that, but with all of your desperately needed logistics trapped outside of those walls with the rest of them that didn't even bother to move inside the base. "No Sundy for you." says Sundy ****.

    Without a doubt, much work needs to be done to solve the numerous problems and cheesy tactics that emerge to meet them head on; however, those efforts need to be applied to both sides of the issue in a conscientious manner. I simply don't believe that imposing this restriction will accomplish that. Otherwise the slinky will just get more tangled up. And if that happens, how will you beat the Pet Detective's record then?

    Please take this all with a grain of salt as it stems from my own experiences during attack and defend maneuvers on Planetside 2. I encourage you to be more productive with your time now than I have. Sorry for the textual monolith raised to glorify my opinion... Back to work.. :eek:

    Loyalty until death, Vie

  20. Jubikus

    I believe no deploy zones are needed to restrict certain unfair bases especially the sunderer on tech plant points (and i mean ON the point dont know how they get those up those stairs but they do) where this causes the defenders to have an extreme advantage in medium to large battles where you have plenty of people to shoot anyone trying to get in and kill the sundy.

    Now everyones experience in this game will be different my personal experience is that defenders definitely have the advantage based on how often attacks succeed without a large population advantage or a pub stomping skill level difference like when Recursion drops on a base.

    Now as for any zerg rolling over bases thats just planetside population is almost always king in this game.