[Suggestion] Spawn Limitations

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Ketenks, Nov 21, 2018.

  1. adamts01

    Every change turns people away from the game. The question is whether or not more are turned away than towards. There's room to play with mechanics which make our little virtual lives and kills more valuable.
    • Up x 1
  2. That_One_Kane_Guy

    You are missing the point of what Planetside is.

    Planetside is not ARMA, and trying to force it into that style of gameplay is not going to work. You may as well hop into a COD forum and complain that the entire core gameplay should change to be more like Battlefield's and all of the current players must be forced to "adapt" because you say so. You'll have exactly the same luck there, although their responses may not be so polite.
    • Up x 2
  3. Ketenks

    I think you're wrong. And not just simply wrong but totally blind kind of wrong. Having spawn limitations would greatly improve this game and it has nothing to do with any other game. You could say what you said about any change ever made about any game.
  4. LordKrelas

    How.
    This isn't made for Match-Style combat, nor is made for anything like ARMA, which you've referenced.
    You'd need to explain that logic on that one, So far, you've asked for Suppressors on sniper rifles to disobey science, make it so no one can spawn after so-many-deaths-in-a-region, and state You are new to this..
    So, you're not exactly getting a grand deal of support in the logic, PS2 would be improved by a vastly more limited ability to have combat.

    And how are you still not hitting the quote button?
  5. Ketenks

    Limiting spawns will not make it match style. It would create a separate resource that has to be managed and add a sophisticated meta to the fight.

    Try to keep comments related to the thread. If my reference to Arma was in another thread, don't bring it up here. It has nothing to do with this thread. That's basic forum discipline.

    So why don't you comment about that in the suppressor thread. We aren't going to start arguing about multiple threads in one.
  6. LordKrelas

    A separate resource.
    "Better bank on not dying, or you can't respawn here" Not like Planetside was about Dying en-masse'

    Take a look at this thread then.
    Do you see any support of limiting gameplay to K : D focused, as a goal in the manner you're looking for.

    You have stated in this thread, it should be suicide to attack armor, as infantry.
    Is this good for gameplay, when all that armor has in this game, is basically killing.
    Is it fun to be slaughtered?

    sophisticated meta; Farm the enemy, denying them the ability to respawn at all in this region.
    Leave it un-capped, locking them entirely from that region.

    You have a focus stated here, about Making K : D Matter.
    Kill - Death Ratio, without context, is meaningless.

    Avoiding death, with the ability to cheese lock-out players, isn't sophistication.
    It's basically punishing people who are less skilled, unlucky, or just died, on top on death itself.
    As it's not set-up for that notion.

    You even stated, that Reviving should cost you a Life.
    The meta would be, Ghost-capping, and avoidance of combat, over actually fighting.

    You bring up "realistic" every time you can.

    Let's showcase this.
    [IMG]
    You said yes, to "Wish it was over in 10 kills", so
    When you're having a good fight, it's basically over rapidly, No long-drawn engagements if you camp a corner.
    You go to friendly-fire, as something, that could be argued with equal, to lock-outs of players, so casually.
    Mean-while, tactically, If you want the enemy to stop, is it better to camp a corner, or actually engage their spawn location?
    If lives were counted, none would bother leaving the corner, as the enemy is completely screwed.

    You ever been in Koltyr? I don't mean, playing, I mean stuck in the Que, without combat or anything.
    Most people kinda hate being stuck in a menu, for hours, let alone during prime-time, since something killed them.
    A single battle, a single tank, a single player, 40 kills; If that's the fight on the continent (not prime-time, that's a thing), You just locked 40 people away from the only battle on the map.
    Now could've been through just using a Max, a Tank, and ESF, or explosives; Nothing they do anything about at the time.
    Past not exist.

    Let's go over, the typical history of people, if You play the game.
    [IMG]
    This sums it up.
    People right now, have no reason to care about death,
    The ones that do, are literally the ones whom are useless in Objective play.

    Your suggestion, puts a price on dying, and makes it a Hard-cost; Not a delay for dying too often, or failure.
    But a complete lockout.

    Lets' go over this then;
    [IMG]
    You are new, You wish capture times were Faster.
    Which means you aren't aware of a few key things; Actually having time to respond.
    With limited-lives, all the mass choke points mean it's even easier to spawn-camp.
    Vehicle all the stronger.

    You love going to where there are no fights, and none-engages..
    This is possible on: Non-prime-time.
    As no way in hell, is one lone person capping a lane, starting an alert, that isn't being engaged by a squad or platoon, during prime-time.

    More tactical, by introducing more reasons to avoid actually fighting.
    As if you engage in anything that involves risk, you lose out everything; For nothing.

    We have no value in capturing the continents past rewards. You even state, and this is key; That less rewards for losing, and punishing the losers on top, rather than reward loyalty.

    K : D Focused.
    This is counter-productive to Objective-play.
    Any player that plays the objective in this game, typically has a low K : D , as they will die for the objective.
    The ones who care about that, in the experience of years now, are scared *****, that I can't get out of the spawn-room.

    The player base of PS2, isn't a "Avoid death __ times" crowd, if you didn't notice from the numerous responses that aren't from me.
    You want death to matter in a universe where death is nothing to the war.
    It's a bit ironic.

    I'd rather go with Adam's notion, than just limiting lives to every single engagement on the continents.
    As that means, every fight, You motivate every player to Value their own life in a video game about grinding kills, over anything else.
    As once they hit it, They lose access to the entire engagement, which is their best shot at certs, kills, and everything else.
    Restarting fights from nothing, ones that are lively & enjoyable combats, for most people here, are not "Click click Done fight ended permanently. Never moved from my wall"
    They are typically "I Fought from one end to the other, and finally took out their reinforcement point, while under enemy fire."
    "They sent in hundreds, we fought the tides, till we pushed them back to the sunderers, and nuked them back to their hex."

    That sums up most of the best memorial battles.
    And is most of PS2's marketing; Large scale battles, of endless soldiers, whose lives aren't valuable by themselves.
    No marketing, in Ps1 or Ps2 , was never about killing individuals, and winning by that way.
    As, we are all immortal, and the only thing that matters, is our respawn points in this war, Not us.
  7. Ketenks

    Didn't read your post. You don't have substance in your argument just argument. This thread is dead. You've said what you want to say. If others have something else to say, don't come back and then retell your story.
  8. LordKrelas

    [IMG]

    Vs yourself,
    [IMG]

    A response to
    [IMG]
    Who even had an article, and explained the logic.

    Mean while, I too had picture references, references to other posts, documented evidence, and explained every aspect of what I said.
    But sure, I had no substance.

    Did I mention, I'd actually prefer a proper argument, not a "I am right, You are blind"?
    Not yet? Of course, I had hope, it wouldn't be that kind of thing.
    But hey, you couldn't quote a single one of us anyway.
    • Up x 1
  9. That_One_Kane_Guy

    That's splendid mate, but what you think and what is so do not always coincide. But why don't you scurry on down to the WW3 forums and hit them with some of your bright ideas? They may be more amicable to your suggestions, mostly because A. they are still building up core game mechanics, and B. they aren't 6 years clear of their release date.

    Unfortunately they will probably expect you to be capable of quoting and utilizing the forum interface properly so you may want to work on that a little bit.
    • Up x 1
  10. Ketenks

    It doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread. Most forums have a quote button for every post rather than have to type the person's name every time you want to quote someone.

    At any rate, spawn limitations would CHANGE the Planetside 2 FARM META that is defining this game. And yes, that is a good change. But it wouldn't ERASE the farm meta just reduce it and give value to objective play which is why you kill people in the first place. Go play fortnite if all you want is a kill box.
  11. adamts01

    You really need to figure this out. On the bottom right side of the post you want to quote, here's a "reply" button. Just click on that and the entire text is ready to go in the comment area at the bottom of the screen. You can go in and delete whatever text isn't relative to your reply. Then just type your reply beneath the quote.

    As for the topic, I'm on board with some sort of spawn limitation, but I don't want to see a limited number of lives, because Lib fights are great. I'd rather see a spawn delay of some sort to limit the more cheezy tactics out there, like suicide runs with bouncing betties or shotguns. And also a system that would make the time it took to flank worthwhile, because as it is, that maneuvering time with 1 life could have been much more useful rushing the point with 3 lives. And those enemies you did kill on your flanking adventure are only delayed a few seconds, or are more likely just revived and right back in the fight.
    • Up x 1
  12. Ketenks

    Look, it only appears like having spawn delay would be a win-win for everyone. "Oh look, we still technically have infinite spawn but now everyone is just waiting progressively longer to get into the battle....great, a 15 second delay...oh crap I died....20 seconds...uh I guess I should just leave."

    You are forcing the player to make the choice about how much time he is willing to waste for a timer over how much he wants to win this particular fight. At the end of the day, every single time a player chooses to leave the region because of the timer you are going to have an angry, dissatisfied player: every time.

    So it looks good on paper but in execution it is a nightmare to actually play. Everyone will be ticked off because now they are just sitting there waiting for the fight. Over the course of time, the amount of hours playing planetside just waiting for your spawn delay would build up and become an ever growing reminder of the failure of the mechanism. People will complain on these forums more and more until they quit or DBG changes it.

    With lives per region limiting the spawns, DBG makes the choice for you from the beginning as to how much you are able to fight in that region but the moment that choice comes up, you weren't and aren't ever delayed in playing and you just pick yourself up to the next region. So the player accepts his lot and forgets it more or less in the next battle. This will make the players spread out a little bit into the front line and make it a good fight where ever you go anyway. So there is no drawback. Only benefit and in multiple ways.

    The only "drawback" is the mental aspect for seasoned players who only play for the farm of it. They will think their glorious farm has been burned up as by fire in the most deleterious way. But that anger and dissatisfaction is only temporary and will soon fade as the mechanism is proven to be a great balancer for objective play and their farm didn't go away to begin with. Once they feel how the game plays, they won't be crying.
  13. Sazukata

    Gotta love those "I know game design" types. :rolleyes:

    Ketenks, it's good that you're brainstorming. It's important that us vets who are used to the status quo aren't calling all the shots. But just like politics, you have to balance understanding how things are and how things should be. (Experienced elders vs idealistic youth kind of thing)

    Limited spawns per region will not work with PS2. You want an artificial method for fights to dissolve "to encourage more careful usage", but there's already a victory condition that serves the same purpose: capturing the base or destroying all enemy sunderers.

    We've had vehicle timers in the distant past; you couldn't pull the same vehicle/aircraft for several minutes after the first one. To "encourage more careful use", right? But then once one side lost, the winning side snowballed because they could accumulate more forces unhindered, while the side that lost couldn't mount a defense due to being on cooldown and/or still regenerating resources. It wasn't competitive.

    As well, what happens when a player's lives run out for that region? Do they regenerate at some point? Are they banned from spawning at the region for the rest of the foreseeable play session? I can't think of any reason to force a fight to dry up in a game built on the premise of eternal conflict.

    To join up not even a month ago and tell people to go play Fortnite if they don't like your sweeping changes... well, you have to understand how silly that looks.

    Understand what PS2 is, and then consider how to improve on that. For example, I want the Heavy Assault's overshield to be reworked into something that isn't a universal "press F to win" button. Doing so would be a significant change that most people wouldn't like of course, but it doesn't fundamentally change how the game works.


    Anyways... They've been working on a spawn revamp and have been discussing on Reddit (ew) for quite some time now. From what I've heard, it intends to spread population across the frontline for those good even-pop fights and do so without forcibly ending them. At least, that's the intention. I hope it goes over well.
    • Up x 1
  14. That_One_Kane_Guy

    It does when your inability to utilize basic forum controls is having a negative impact on any attempt at discussion in said thread. The Reply button is clearly marked and its function should be obvious.
    Yes, it would but not in the way you are thinking. I am not going to rephrase what has already been said to you multiple times this thread about the detrimental impact of such a system. You are like the bright eyed engineering student on his first day on the job who still thinks that everything will work the way it did in the lab. I feel like I say this every bloody day now but: 'You can't force players to play the game the way you think it should be played.'
    As you are the one making broad claims that KD should be made more important and the one pushing for limited lives, this statement is...ironic.
  15. Ketenks

    Timers are never a good idea. They will always spoil the game play. Resources is how you balance a game because that's how life is balanced. Time is what we live in. It is automatically balanced. So you make one point about why limited lives wouldn't work and you make it in terms of timers...

    I'm pointing out the obvious here.
  16. Sazukata

    Several things to note here...
    -Nanites are still technically timers, it just places the forced waiting after a few tries of a rather than 1 to prevent careless spam but without preventing "regroup & retaliation" after a single failure.
    -Real life is not balanced. Real war is about how hard you can cheese your opponent. Not good for a game meant to be enjoyed.
    -Dying in this game is already balanced by time. When you get killed, you're taken out of the fight for 10 or 15 seconds of respawn delay plus the time it takes to run back to the point of conflict. That is how the costless infantry is balanced against nanite-based force multipliers. Because nanites are time.
    -My comparison with the vehicle timers of old is valid. The side that sustains less losses will snowball on the diminished enemy. Speaking of Fortnite, I tried it at a friend's house a few months back. The single-life 50v50 game mode does exactly this.

    Cherrypicking a detail rather than addressing the overarching premise isn't very good debate etiquette. Please reply to the rest of my post.
  17. Ketenks

    I was waiting for this statement. I knew you would contradict yourself the moment you were contradicted. First you say

    And now this? But then why did you say it in the first place? We know that the nanites are a resource gained through time. But obviously there was a distinct difference from the past than what it is now for you to have said that it used to be based on timers and it isn't anymore. But the moment you are contradicted you retract the generality and go for the specifics as if you were more informed.

    Well get this. Timers are never a good limitation in a game unless you are playing one of those build your base idle games that totally revolve around it. (All those games suck by the way if you are looking to play for more than an hour.) There I said it.

    So why is the nanite system better even though it is limited through time? Because it is a derivative limitation. The resource pool mitigates the time. If you wanted to better the system just double the pool and double the time and you will have even more balance. You could even make a system totally similar to the limited lives per region system. Give them a maximum pool of nanites per region. The nanites reset for that region when the base is captured or defended. And the battle starts all over again.

    There are many ways to create balance through resources. Varying the scope of the resource versus the conditions for resupply can create MANY balances. But time is a funnel that can only be changed one way: a delay per the type of resource. So it generally is not suited for complex systems that demand your attention.

    By limiting spawns by lives you would not limit them by time at all. You could respawn immediately which is an incredible benefit to a fast paced shooter game. If you read this thread, which I understand it is becoming quite long, we already talked about revives and their effect on timers.
  18. Trigga

    Comendable, but your idea, along with many on this forums doesnt fit with the idea of this game.
    It just doesnt fit with the intent of gameplay.

    'Death is no excuse' that is one of the games motos. Youre trying to remove that entire design premise more than 6 years after it was decided (and infact, 2 decades after the intial planetside concept).
    Sorry but it just isnt what this game was built for.
    Disagree with idea.
  19. Ketenks

    So...a motto...dictates...balance? And that's the law. This game needs a reboot and if you want to attract more players then you've got to get sophisticated.

    My first impression of this game as a new player was that this game was still in beta. And I know how hard that might hit for developers but the whole game seems unbalanced from the get go. The vehicles are too cheap. The physics is querky. The game play isn't snappy or tight. So all of you guys who keep saying "this is a 6 year game. it's 6 years old. it's old man. it's like so old...it's set in its ways..." don't seem to notice the obvious peculiarities that just turn new players off.

    Implement lives per region and you'll have a better game, all mottos aside.
  20. strikearrow

    I disagree with the idea. I have a k/d of about 2 most days, but even though I don't go rushing into battle and rarely play the "get-bodies-on-point regardless-of-cost tactic", I still strongly dislike the idea of reducing the Indie aspect of the game by limiting spawns to a particular region. I can just see squads and platoons having to break up because some of the newer members die too often.

    It's a bad idea because either the number of spawns would be so great that it made no difference or it would be few enough to matter and then it'd reduce the flexibility of the game, which would also be bad. There is no scenario where an open world sandbox game benefits from limiting spawns.