Spawn changes currently on live

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by joshua, May 30, 2014.

  1. Solaries

    Played quite a bit with this tonight and have mixed feedback.

    A) Reinforcements needed turning off at 50% is great, but there are still circumstances where a base is underpopped and defenders never get the reinforcements needed option at all. These are missed opportunities.

    N) The ability to spawn at any sunderer anywhere means large numbers of attackers can move from one front to another with no personal cost to themselves. This means that whenever an initial attack is broken, generally by cutting spawn points, players have the easy option of deploying to another fight and letting that lane die instead of continuing to battle there, so that fight dries up.

    Recommendations: Redesign Reinforcements needed to bring attackers to the battle as well, either by spawning them at their nearest base in the lane or at sunderers at the battle. Remove the ability to spawn at any Sunderer anywhere. This will encourage combat to stay within a lane so the fight doesn't simply dissipate when a sunderer dies as it tends to now.

    Also, there is either a bug or very unfortunate decision forcing Squad Beacons to have their cooldown reset every time someone dies and this cooldown starts when the beacon is first placed. Please fix.
    • Up x 1
  2. VonStalin

    I like to have more spawn options. I hope they will leave those changes.
    • Up x 1
  3. UberBonisseur

    Or maybe he sneakily brings in a small squad to "ghost cap" a base without the enemy responding to the 1-12 threat level, but in your infinite wisdom you and your headless chicken lonewolf friends decide to redeploy there, increasing the count to 24-48 only for a Platoon to redeploy a critical mass, send aircraft and crush what could have been an easy cap ?

    You probably don't remember, but in PS1 there was a tactic that consisted in infiltrating a continent with extremely small numbers so it didn't trigger the "enemy presence" indicator.
  4. Torok

    Wow this is exciting, will test it out this evening EU prime time and comeback with feedback

    It's a bug, it was already a bug for the Squad leader everytime a member would hit the "Squad deploy" button, it simply translated over everyone everytime someone uses it.
    If anything this will get it addressed already and fixed, lol can't believe this had to happen for it to get fixed though.

    Wow that's some good feedback, so troublesome aswell, sounds unavoidable and gamebreaking with the current changes.
  5. Sovereign533

    I have not been able to play for the last 1,5 months because I'm currently working.
    But why the need to keep reducing the worth of vehicles. Why not make the game as a series of Counterstrike maps where you can choose on what map uhh, area you want to fight?
    I don't like the idea of being able to spawn where ever I want. I also don't like the idea of being able to pull Galaxies from everywhere.
    I like the idea of meaningful logistics. I like the idea of supply routes that can be interrupted. I like the flight to a battle while you hear incoming intelligence on the state of the battle. I like the gypsy van convoys going from one base to another while being escorted by Lightnings. Or attacked by Mosquito's or Scythes.

    Being restricted in doing some stuff makes other stuff more epic. Not being able to just spawn where ever you want gives the possibility to have cool fights in between bases while one faction tries to get a spawn solution at the next base and the other trying to stop them.
    Being able to just drive a Sunderer around before that in between the base fight happens so that everybody online can spawn as a zergfromacan on that thing just sounds bad.

    I understand the reason why you do it, because the game needs more players to inject money into it. But slowly turning it into a full clone of Battlefield in stead of being its own game gives diminishing returns. The grand maps gives great possibility to have logistics going back and forth. It can give a whole new depth to warfare in stead of the standard 'I killed more of you then you killed of us so we win'.
    I am afraid that if we keep going along the path of making everything easier and more accessible it just turns into a clone of a game that has a ****ton of hype and commercials behind it. And it is not possible to win from the Battlefield franchise, and even if you'd try EA wouldn't let you.
    Changes like this can also reduce the core of gamers that really enjoy this game and not Battlefield. And that could lead to ending up as a futuristic battlefield where everybody can move from anywhere to anywhere without any restriction that might get more players in the short term, but loses them in the long term.

    As for me for now, PS2 stayes my favorite game and I can't wait to come back when I'm done working. But messages like this worry me.
    • Up x 3
  6. Astriania

    - Reinforcements - a bit of a quick hack solution, but probably welcome
    - Deploy on any sunderer - oh god no the humanity. Seriously, this is just about the worst possible thing you could do to spawn mechanics. It means that rather than being instantly able to zerg-defend a base with a reinforcement marker, which is bad and breaks logistics as documented in many threads, you can now instantly zerg anywhere. I don't have words for how bad an idea this is.
    - Breaking squad deploy: What does squad deploy do now in those situations? Is it just not available? I'm on the fence about this one, except that you have horribly broken squad beacons so the 'right' way of moving a squad (fly there, drop a beacon, have your squad drop on it) isn't available at the moment either.

    It's good that you're willing to experiment and solicit feedback, but please please revert the sunderer spawn change as it totally ruins the strategic game.
    • Up x 4
  7. Kriegson

    I seem to recall your attitude was "Screw other players, I'm in it for me."
    And yet you take offense to others having that same attitude?
    • Up x 1
  8. ronjahn

    I think the 50% cap on reinforcements needed should be helpful. It should slow those massive platoon redeploys to break a cap with only seconds to go. The ability to spawn an entire platoon across the map without limitations was hurting the flow of battles and causes a large number of players to play Redeployside instead of fighting for and pushing up a lattice lane.

    I also agree that the ability to redeploy to any Sunderer on the map is going to cause a massive interruption in the flow of battles. I hate seeing a good battle disappear because the enemy decided they wanted to fight halfway across the map, but with Sunderer redeploy, this will become much worse. It destroyed the sense of purpose for me and I was just randomly deploying to the spot on the map that I thought would be the best farm for me. It removes important logistical aspects of the game. Please consider removing this.
    • Up x 2
  9. BilliBobBillsen

    From my perspective as platoonleader:
    Moving a zerg arround the continents and making even the last idiot sitting in his tank redeploy is already hard enough. Pls dont test something that belongs to the test server on the live server. If u want to test something that requires poeple on the test server just make it an event where people get a free camo or a free exp boost or something. I find it really hard to be constructive about that because right now everything with this 3 rules seem to be just dumb.

    the 50:50 spawnroom turn off.
    The reason why planetside 2 has this epic largescale fights is that people are able to redeploy very fast and easy. The fast and easy is ofcourse just for the lil bit experienced players. Anyways ... the majority of players isnt and some of them are already overwhelmed if the have to press the redeploy buttom. This will lead to a state of game where the nooblets will just sit on the redeployment screen waiting to able to spawn somewhere or redeploy to useless places. Im goin into the sundere thing later. They will get frustrated log off and play COD because the fights there will be eaven just like u seem to plan it in planetside 2.
    The only problem is that BF4 and COD have better mechanics and the only thing that makes planetside 2 unique is the possibility to have large scale fights as well as small scale fights.
    MAYBE: u can apply the 50:50 rule on small outposts becuase these bases are mostly so small that its not cool when these bases are hit by 48+zergs (defending or attacking) but just MAYBE.

    The I can spawn on every Sundie rule:
    Right now its already hard enough to spawn on the right location when u want to spawn on a different sundie in the same location.
    Just think of a primetime alert with sundies all over the place and the redeploylist without any indicator where they are. I mean I know where west-highlands is so i can just click the sundie over there. But what about the newbe they doesnt know anything. Theyll just find a big *** list of spawn points and will probably end up in ymir biolab.

    U shall only spawn on squad sundies and gals:
    *facepalm* pls read the beginning of my post about being platoonlead.

    I can understand that this change is a chance to up the gameplay with logistics. But only a few players per server have the knowledge and are willing to do that.
    Last thing: It absolutely not justified to test something on the live server when u have a test server. As stated before give away some boosts on a event to test that and dont harass paying costumers with unfinished ideas on the live server.
    • Up x 3
  10. DaMann22

    LOVE CHANGE 1. Now during alerts we won't have huge enemy populations turning up to cap back points. Man I hated that happening.
    Change 2: I think you should limit the range instead of making it continent wide. Maybe 1000m or 1500m (upper limit 2000m).
    Change 3: IDK, I rarely used that to get to my squad leader. Normally we have a sundy or spawn beacon close and if not one is nearly always provided.
  11. LibertyRevolution

    My attitude is make certs, screw playing for land and alerts...
    Big difference from being a scumbag that wont let your own faction spawn at your sunderer.

    I am the type of player that would pull a sunderer just to get you back for trying to screw the rest your faction. :cool:

    Oh, sorry if I may disrupt your ghost capping.. wow.. o_O
    My god, the enemy may actually redeploy and make a fight out of it.. we can't be having of that now.. :rolleyes:

    I give up... you win.. have a nice day.
  12. Gammit

    One sounds cool, two sounds horrible because it will encourage hex-hopping around the continent, three A is a bad idea without context (why are you considering this?), three B is fine.
  13. Stanis

    I can only hope that the many replies on Reddit threads are also read.

    This makes the attacking population able to bounce all over the map from sunderer to sunderer.
    If it's bad for defenders this is just as much a problem : its now redeploy wars.

    My biggest problem with any form of reinforcement or attack is the removal of distance.

    There is no ability to interdict or intercept an incoming attacking force or prevent defenders reaching a base.
    That means lack of terrain fights. It means a sunderer instantly becomes the new front line of attack.

    You can't prevent the infantry at the warpgate or at any other base isntantly appearing here.

    This is quite frankly annoying and wrong.
    Spawn at the closest sunderer.
    Spawn at a squad owned sunderer.
    Spawn at squad beacon.

    Remove "reinforcements needed". Entirely.

    If attackers/defenders chose not to position their troops and respond to an attacking force : so be it.
    We knew any base was vulnerable to attack. We can see the lattice and know where the problem lies.

    Whatever system we implement it should add time and distance to attacking and defending forces.
    The defacto positon should make it easy for a force to respond ONE LATTICE LINK BACK from the fight and then move into it.
    This means forces in a hex can intercept or interdict incoming troops rather see the population just rise.
    • Up x 3
  14. maxkeiser

    I wish they'd stop pi**ing around with the spawn system (and other things). We don't want artificial restrictions. The WHOLE POINT of PS2 is the sandbox element. If I wanted controlled spawns and rules I'd play BF or something else.

    Also, as people are saying, this change can only aid attackers. Defenders should ALWAYS be able to spawn at a facility (unless the CPU is down). They own the facility - spawing there is the defenders advantage.

    Jesus. For SOE to even be trying this more than a year after release just beggars belief.

    The slow removal/attempts to constrain free, sandbox play will be what kills PS2 eventually. It will make me leave, certainly, as the sandbox element is really the main selling point.
  15. SevenTwo

    From my perspective, the current "defence" game largely consists of people spawning at a facility once it requires reinforcement and then either getting a critical mass of infantry to push out the attackers or simply getting locked into the spawn room for the duration of the cap, after which the defenders spawn down the lattice and try to defend that location as well.

    The tested changes to the spawn system didn't really seem to change that up much, though the 50% cut-off seems like a good idea to prevent execessive defensive spawn surging. The defenders can however just spawn a sunderer of their own to negate this limitation, though this spawn option would of course have to be defended to be of any use.

    Defending the auxiliary spawn sunderer shouldn't be that much of an issue, unless the base is getting hit by overwhelming odds - at this point defence is likely impossible anyway or there needs to be a concerted effort made from the outside of a base to drive the attackers out.

    As for generally being able to spawn on any sunderer you desire, I think this is a really bad idea. It allows for jumping between any location on the continent without any limitations and this dilutes the whole idea of having continent-sized maps in the first place.

    Granted, it makes it easier to get into the action, which newer players might appreciate more than anyone else, but it dilutes the scale of game to a point where traveling (and being vulrenable) between locations is pretty much cut away. This detracts from the game experience in my opinion.

    Instead allow people to spawn at any major base their faction owns (Biolab, AMP Station or Tech plant), as no hostile base would be more than maybe 2-3 link jumps away from such a location.

    People generally should be able to figure out how to pull a Flash or a Harasser to drive that short distance and it doesn't take more than literally a few minutes to travel by vehicle to anywhere on the map like this. It migh even increase the use of the light vehicles, as these are currently severely underused in general play (granted for other reasons, but they are very capable as transportation devices if nothing else).

    That being said, I think it's interesting that SOE is willing to try out things like this and get some data on it - but please tread very carefully before making the changes permanent, as it really messes up some of the aspects that makes the game unique compared to the competition. Open world environments, traveling and fighting between locations is, at least to me, part of this experience. Being able to spawn-teleport all over the place removes a lot of this interaction and I think that is a shame.
  16. SteelMantis

    I don't think putting it on the test server first would mean much, there isn't really enough people on there to test anything that needs multiple large battles to see how it works.

    I'm expecting to see a lot more of this kind of testing on the live PC servers as we move forward into this year and likely (or at least hopefully) have a much larger player base on the PS4. And in return for our part helping out with the live tests the PC players always have access to the newest shiniest build and a greater voice in how the game evolves over time.

    As far as the changes being tested now I like #1.

    I also like #2 although I would like to see how it works if it had a similar cap as #1, or even better I would like to see what would happen if both base spawns and Sunders were available regardless of range but both turned off automatically at 60% local population. Then battles could escalate indefinitely as long as people from both sides wanted to keep spawning there but as soon as things started to get too lopsided the lonewolf players would get channeled to other bases.

    I'm not at all concerned about the Sundy spawn changes killing the vehicle game since the Sundy is a vehicle it's self and if it becomes more important then anti-armor vehicles also become more important. While this change could kill large movements of infantry over a long distance I wouldn't be surprised if they were quickly replaced with armor columns who's only purpose was to either protect to destroy the Sundys.

    Sounds good to me, most drivers would rather fight other vehicles and it's not too much fun for the infantry players to get farmed by tanks.

    I'm not sure if I like #3, let's give it a good long test on the live servers and see how it works out.
    • Up x 1
  17. libbmaster

    Changes one and three are both good.

    Not sure I like two though. That's a lot of mobility.

    Though, it does mostly restrict people to the offensive, (since that's when sundies go up) and it does force you to rely on other players... so I might be able to get used to it.
  18. DSA_Corsair114

    #1 Is a decently nice change. Sort of.

    #2 Seems like it's to make destroying/hacking vehicle terminals a much more important task than before. That said, it also pretty handily crushes any offensive motion whenever fighting a faction that is heavily overpopulated.

    Ex. last night on Briggs-Indar NC was at 50% pop with VS at 24% and TR at 26% and neither faction was able to make any significant headway on account of NC having the numbers to stall any given area long enough for someone to pull a Sundie then flood the area with troops, stalling any attack and usually taking another area shortly after.
  19. Tentakewls

    I really don't see the point of change all, especially now that you can deploy to any seems random as hell.
  20. Kislany

    I might be in minority here but as a new player I like #2, deploying to any open sunderer. Sometimes I have very limited time to play, and just to get to some good fight (e.g. Esamir where there were no squads to joint to 'jump in' so to speak at the time), most of the times I would deploy hop across the continent to get where I wanted to. Or to get things faster I'd /suicide /deploy.../suicide /deploy...rinse and repeat. basically spending 10 or so minutes just going around to find a fight I wanted, leaving me with 50 minutes of play. Today I jumped in 3 heavy fights on Amerish, it was awesome.

    Played actively rather than doing map hopping just to get somewhere. Saw a fight I liked, jumped in and contributed to either pushing back attackers or taking over a base, depending what was going on - rather than looking at a half empty map because I was so far away from everything (yeah I still haven't got the hang of driving a Flash, maybe will change my mind once I can actually drive *sigh*).