"Redeployside 2" Has sucked the fun out of the game

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by NikolaiLev, Mar 17, 2015.

  1. wrenched

    Yep - let people pick from any base on the front line to disperse forces, to try and push from the side etc...solves the problem. People in this thread think that somehow dispersing forces along the front line will lessen troop logistics. Do players just sit in empty bases at the moment? No. They will push out and the result will be more troops on the move along a wider, larger combat area. It will increase troop logistics.

    Simple concept that solves OP problem while keeping the battle going. Like others have said, sitting in a transport just to move from one battle to another is boring. Just widen the battle along the front lines.

    Well then I disagree. Seems to me the meat is that people mass redeploy because it is their only option. The other option shouldn't be long, boring drives. The way most maps are made you will have to drive back through your own territory to avoid mountains, shields etc...what a bore. Just grab Euro truck simulator.
  2. OldMaster80

    I've telling this for months. I couldn't say it better.
    In a game such as ps2 is the ability to instantly move a full platoon across the continent should not even exist.

    This redeploy **** went too far. People has been complaining about lack of strategy and depth in combat for years but devs must acknowledge that this will never be a better game until redeploy is like this.
    • Up x 2
  3. quatin

    There's galaxies for situations like that.

    If you're so impatient, hit instant action. Even if you die right away, you get the next closest spawn point to a big battle.
  4. PurpleOtter

    Redeploying should cost resources....want to go back to the Warp gate? that would be free of cost....Want to drop on a deployed squad beacon..free...If you want to move across the map via lattice links then it costs resource points. The more "Links" the higher the fare...and it needs to be prohibitively expensive...
    • Up x 2
  5. quatin

    How about the bigger the fight you deploy into through a base spawn point, the more it costs? If you don't control the spawn point, huge penalty IE 350 resources, so you can't immediately MAX zerg.

    Logistical spawn points IE galaxies, valks, sundies, squad spawn can be free.
  6. Skiptrace

    Replies in bold.
  7. \m/SLAYER\m/

    are you evil a2g farmer?
    massive redeploy is really hurts during alerts. but redeploy is great tool to find and good fight for solo players.
    instead nerfing it, why dont just improve it for platoons?
  8. maxkeiser

    Basically agree with this.

    In any event, platoons and outfits will just re-deploy to the WG and get galaxies and then drop on the bases with overwhelming force. KOTV did this in a recent esamir alert (went to WG and did gal drops for almost every attack - so no redeployside) and people still whined. Even though we were using 'proper' logistics.

    People just don't like organised play.
  9. Yuki10

    Want some Vaseline?
  10. FateJH

    Do you really think it take so much effort? I do not mean "in comparison to what we have now" because what we have now would spoil any kind of suggestion. I am asking, in general, does it really take that much effort to get from one place on the map to the next? You could fly across the map in under a minute in an ESF. Mountain paths notwithstanding, you could drive an Flash down the coast in the time in takes to cap a base.
    You don't get it. This topic, the reconstruction of deployment principles and methods - none of this is about you. No specifically, not directly, and we're even trying to accommodate your noncommital, indecisive self. You are just one person and, no matter how good you are, one player is essentially meaningless compared to a swarm of players. That's what we've been talking about this whole time. The problem has always been masses of players doing it on a monumental scale, without the ability to be contested, defeating purposes like defenses, logistical concerns, resource considerations, trivialitizing the majority of the map for the indulgence of specific walled and unwalled communal shanties.
    There'd no point to the premise of this game and its environment - what are the merits of a large, connected, interrelated game map if you never actually have any use for any of those features? You may as well drop the farce and release twelve dozen instance maps. You'll probably even get better performance out of that configuration.

    Same as above, you misunderstand. Individually, we don't want you spending a good chunk of time in transport either (and, with the way the game currently is scaled, you'll never spend that long in transport unless you don't know where you weant to go in the first place).

    Is this a Steam game?

    If we did this as we are now, there'd be no logical gameflow at all. The only gameflow available with the pur Hex system was aggravating each other until one side grew bored with the other. The Warp Whistle from SMB3 is a blessing for progression but a curse for development because it drops you further towards the end of the game with none of the resources (lives, power-ups) you could have accumulated by taking the slow route. And there's no point to World 2 or World 3 if you always take the option to skip to World 5.
    Planetside Classic did allow you to disrupt and eventually capture bases that were not connected to your own (like this) but the time investment and effort required was significant, and it often had side-effects that made certain the people on the front lines were impacted by your successes or risks so they had to go back and stop you.
    You demonstrate much more strategic sense than I am concerned the people above me do, at least.
    Why don't we have these things? because, developers and impatience.

    tl;dr - Yes, there is a too long; didn't read. The problem is pacing. Combat in this game has no pacing.
    • Up x 3
  11. maxkeiser

    If by 'logical game flow' you mean trying to force people to play on a lattice chain, with little chance of leaving than I don't think most people want to play that sort of game.

    If I wanted to play a chain or series of restricted 'lattice lane' style fights I would just stick to Battlefield. This ins one reason why the introduction of the lattice system almost ruined PS2 (I say almost, because of just enough of the free-form gameplay remains to make it fun).

    People play PS2 for the sandbox, go anywhere, anything can happen play. I like to be able to fight at one base for a while, then switch to another base, then another and another. Basically do whatever I want (within reason).

    I do NOT want to be forced to sit at particular bases, or forced to sit on particular lattice chains just because some design lunatic thinks it might be a good idea.
    • Up x 3
  12. Skooma Lord

    I agree that more strategy and planning needs to be brought back into the game. Right now is rare to see really huge battles in between bases. If you are at a base you should be able to spawn at it for free but other bases around it would cost nanites. Otherwise you would have to spawn at a warp-gate and actually have to plan your attacks, not just instantly spawn there.
  13. CapperDeluxe

    Who's "forcing" you to do anything here? Aircraft are plenty capable of being speedy transports, Flash and Harassers as well.
  14. Chewy102

    At least a Gal drop can be seen/heard coming and stopped if the attackers are doing their job. Not only at the fight itself but anywhere on the map where the Gals need to fly. 1 squad holding an AA nest behind enemy lines can slow or stop most anything air from getting close to the fronts effectively killing supply lines.

    Gal drops are so rare that no one plans for them anymore and that is a crime. Last time I camped a warpgate with an AA nest my squad seen 1-2 Gals over half and hour if that many with few other aircraft in general. It turned into mainly new players and the same few guys trying to dig us out. Compare that to earlier in the games life, doing a warpgate camp brought EVERYONE to try and kill you as most used logistics back then and doing this held up their pushes on the front.
    • Up x 1
  15. BaronX13

    So, I have my own bias on redeploy...that being said I'd just like one question answered as a Gal pilot. (genuinely and not sarcastically). Simply, what should I be doing in my Galaxy if not logistics/transport/support. Currently, I pull a gal to fly one place only (usually just one base ahead), and either just ditch it out of uselessness, or provide close air support that either gets chewed up in seconds or positively devastates the ground forces (depending on the battle). I just want to know, if we are going to embrace redeploys, which I'm fine with. What will happen to true logistic/transport vehicles? Are they going to just be somewhat useless from now on? (like they kinda are). Or will they be given a new reason or objective to even exist. Yes, I'm good enough to be an effective gunship and spawn point, and yes I'm good enough to still be an effective force in q battle...but that's not what the vehicle was meant for...thats just my skill making something fun because it lost its true "meaning" of use.
  16. HadesR

    It should be range limited .. As IMO it shouldn't allow for cross continent deploying
    • Up x 1
  17. MrJengles

    Individuals redeploying isn't a problem and not what people want to see changed.

    Good solutions wouldn't really affect individuals, just squads and platoons so they have to use transport to move front.
  18. OldMaster80

    People mass redeploy because they can. A Platoon Leader can move his platoon from a base to another all day basically steamrolling any attempt to conquer. As long as redeploy remains like this it's not possible to outmaneuver a zerg on the lattice map.

    If you want fast action there is a button called Instant Action.

    But if you fight in Xenotech Lab and want to resecure Howling Checkpass then YES, you should do that with transport vehicles. By the way the "long boring drive" takes something like 3 minutes in the worst case (redeploy to wg included).
    The biggest added value this game has is big scale of combat on huge maps... but if everyone has a personal teleporter then PS2 is not different from the other FPS on the market.

    Redeploy is killing strategy in this game, it must be changed. There is freaking thread about this every week.
    • Up x 1
  19. Makora

    Redeploy is a bit broken. But when you think about it. The systems through what it work are all solid. You want the squad to stick close to your squad-leader, so making it easier to spawn where he/she is at is smart. Being able to spawn at the next of previous base is also convenient enough to not be overpowered.
    Problems rise with the additional system like sunderer spawning and squad spawning into vehicles. The later is especially painful as it completely ignores No-Deploy Zones and without proper timers added is arguably much more effective way to get your squads to points. Basically it's a mechanic meant to keep the squad together, being abused to function as something else.

    But I see a bigger problem that is what makes redeployside so effective.

    Having 48v48v48 battles sound awesome. But I'm willing to wager a guess there are only a handful of bases in this entire game that come close to supporting that number of players without reaching critical saturation. By that I mean having 30 people sitting on the only capture point of a base. It is virtually impossible to get them off that point unless you bring greater numbers of people. Who in turn dig in, and need even greater number of people to root out.

    People want these awesome super.massive battles but they don't realize it's not what they're getting. A 96v96 battle is a clusterf*ck where over half the infantry will not draw in. You are effectively fighting a very laggy 36v36 battle. You do not sense the scope of the fight because it is concentrated to a single hex and thus measures have to be taken for the servers and our computers to not burst into flames.

    Instead, I wish DBG took a look at a system where the map is divided into regions that themselves are divided into bases. To capture a region you need to capture and hold ALL bases within the region. Meaning you have to fight over a larger area, creating considerably larger battlefields, allowing for more creative strategies and tactics to form. The size of a region should, in general be about the size of a facility and the support bases that carry it's name. So there's a Mani Region with the biolab and the three support bases.
    How the regions would be set up is that they are connected by lattice. You can assault all points within a region as you see fit. Even if the base in question is in the "enemy rear". There would be one "Main base" per region that takes longer to capture and offers a benefit like being the only source of MBT's or air vehicles (or both) within a region. Even if all bases are attacked simultaneously, I don't see it being a problem as it requires a lot of coordination to pull off and even if this happens, the defenders can concentrate on a single base to "Keep the fight going" by not letting the attacker completely secure a region and move on. The Defenders have the home advantage in that regard. Because it's "their region" they need to hold just ONE base within it to maintain the frontline while as the attackers have to capture and hold ALL bases.
    This lets people with command aspirations and skills to flex their muscles as you have to consider the bigger picture that is still manageable. Simply put, zergs themselves remain, redeployside itself, though needing tweaks, can still remain. It's just the effective outcome of this is negated as these larger forces are forced to spread out over a larger area. Redeployside allows you to react fast but you can't be everywhere at once. At some point your forces will be so spread out that you have no idea who's where or doing what unless that was part of the plan and all the people that mater know what to do. A case where in the best outcome, even with massive numbers, the side with the smarter leaders have a clear advantage over the side with no leadership and reasonably greater numbers.

    This system does have a downside as it allows for far greater "ghost capping" when the number of people involved is small enough that it turns into a game of "ring around the Rosie". But if this game is made to be "MOAR PEOPLE! MASSIVE BATTLES!" then I consider that to be a very, VERY moot point. If you've got a platoon or more under your command, you can spare a squad to be the QRF and make sure none of the secured bases get ghost-capped and supply reinforcements to them when and if needed. I don't think you can make a base that scales perfectly regardless if it's a 1-12 or 48-96 fight. You have to pick a number and stick with it. If it's 12-24 then it will be a clusterf*ck when two platoons drop in. If it's meant for 48-96 then it will be large and cumbersome for small units to fight effectively in.
    Also there's the problem of the current map setup. Some bases simply do not match up so they could be made into a decent sized region or added to an another one to make them just a bit too large. But in those cases I don't see a problem with having 2 base regions or simply single "checkpoint" bases between regions for a change of pace. Maybe those bases could be redesigned into fortresses that are very difficult to attack and pretty much demand a full frontal brain-dead meatgrinder for those who like that kind of thing. There's quite a few, if I am not mistaken.
  20. SavageBacon

    So for the "redeploy has no strategy", let me ask the following:

    What happens on the other hexes when the enemy redeploys an overwhelming defensive force in one location?

    See the thing is, goading the enemy to do this is a strategy so long as you coordinate that idea with that your faction. The more you can pull to your hex and keep them there, that's forces they can't match elsewhere. Not only can your faction capitalize on this, but the other faction as well; yeah you're not coordinating with them, but sometimes giving them an opening ends up helping your faction in the long-run.

    I would say the lattice is the issue since you can have situations where an enemy with the most territory can only be attacked at a few bases with long enough timers to appropriately overpop, smash and move over to the next area.