[Suggestion] Spawn Limitations

Making the game have 100 lives per region would not change the game. You could have the game as is and now people will not be able to spawn there once the 100 lives run out or until the counter resets at a capture or defense. This will not change the game. You are all putting words in my mouth and especially Krelas. You are arguing against your own ideas of the generality of limiting spawns.

Now look at this:

This right here proves my point in two ways. ONE, you AGREE that limiting spawns is a good idea. TWO, you say the OP is about completely reworking the entire game....

The OP is simply about LIMITING SPAWNS. So there is merit to doing this AT ALL right now for this game. HOW you do that was never a part of the OP and I specifically didn't say how for this very reason. I knew the argumentative types would create arguments out of thin air (LordKrelas does well at this and verbosely at that). So understand that there is merit to the OP and that this game would benefit from limiting spawns MORE than they are now;.

100 lives..
If it would not change the game, why do you want it?
It was suggested to install more SCUs, which limit spawns per region, but not count down lives per player.
You rejected the notion.

You suggest a hard-cap per player on lives, per region, with the objective point resetting them across the region.
No one else has suggested such a hard-cap on Lives, past you.

You have never explained the benefits once.
I have explained the costs 4 times alone.

If you can't explain the 'benefits', then they are incomparable to the cost, on this 6 year old game.
Your original OP, never even mentioned it was a hard-limit.
Nor ever explained the benefits; You say words like "tactical", and I give you examples from experience.

If you can't say how, nor say at all what you want past one part; it's a failure of a concept.
if I say "We need One-hit kill dart guns", and that's all I say, it sounds bat**** insane.

That's where you shot yourself in the foot. I'm a huge fan of limiting spawns in some way, and I can't remember but I think I even thumbs uped your original post. But you lead with an unpopular and vague proposal, so of course people think the worst.

I've been out of town, on my wife's island with a terrible signal, so I missed a lot of the conversation. But skimming through it looks like your proposals with hard caps would fit other games perfectly but not this one. Not with these bases anyway. You need to keep in mind how restricted movement is in PS2 compared to other open world games. You quite often have no option but throwing bodies at a choke point till your k/d is destroyed and you somehow manage to break through. I think a very soft penalty on death could be a good thing, but anything serious would need a different lattice system, much more open bases with fewer choke points, and possibly larger control areas instead of points, kind of like how Squad does control. I think it's all too much for PS2 at this stage in its life.

Um... ArmA's not in beta...

THAT aside, the thing is that the game's about an endless war grinding up soldiers taking bases from one another.... Endlessly.

Kinda hit that right on the money didn't it? I mean, that's what I thought the whole premise was.

As for it being stale... You're just not moving properly. I tend to flank and get in where enemies pour in from to hold them up while friendlies establish themselves on the points or else I'm priming it with mines for maxes, etc. etc. My myriad of combat options are there in a game about combat. Gun variety, tactical variety, it's all there. I don't get what you're talking about. Legit.

Also, no game lasts forever without getting stale. None. There are favs, for sure, but eventually everyone's gonna need a break from it. This is natural, this is fine.

As for Squad's control point system... No, it would never work. Squad has limited people on even teams. It would literally be just a contest of more people in heavier things if that sort of thing migrated over to PS2. That and I don't carry the infatuation that others seem to have when they think of Squad or Post Scriptum. They don't really offer a unique experience worth anything to me personally.

Despite doing well, despite doing bad in those games, I don't really have any memorable moments from those games. ArmA I do for the downtime between giving me a moment to reflect on some cool parts and the set pieces you can create with it are large. Planetside 2 strangely enough I do due to how me and my buddy approach situations. We're the a-hole harasser everyone complains about and that people immediately whisper taunts to when they get 1 kill to their 3 deaths... right before we come back to claim that fourth. Planetside 2 allows me the freedom to have... well... Fun. Unlike the other two games that demand I play them a VERY SPECIFIC way in order to win which is hit or miss depending on the team you're saddled with. You can have the best game of your life, but your team can ruin it in a heartbeat.

That's kinda the heart of it for me. PS2 allows the freedom of engagement other games do not. Squad/Post Scriptum/ArmA/nameamodernmilitaryshooter do not. I can do wacky things and get away with it and generally have fun. I remember when fun was prioritized over "realism" and those were great times. PS2 is VERY open about how you approach engagements, so I don't really see how we only have "one approach" here. I've done some really stupid stuff and gotten away with it. Never would in other "realistic" or "tactical" games as people put it these days. You are literally talking about limiting the ways I can approach a situation thus dumbing down the number of options I have for fighting.

Again, this game is 6 years old. It still has a player base. What would really bring in more people is more content. More weapon choices, actual varied weapon skins, perhaps adding a naval element like what was proposed a while back? And generally a better new player experience. Let's be honest, the game is hard to start in if you're new and know no one. If we can figure out that hump and help new players get over it without the vets chewing them apart at every step, that'd go a long way towards growing the community.

----------------------------------------

The conversation has actually flown pretty close to the generalized idea the OP originally had in mind, funnily enough. But let's "Get back on topic" and I'll break that down again.

1. Reduced cert gain cause you're dead. Literally said it right there. Now digital lives matter, less engagements, more hiding. More sniping. Everything wrong with FPS games today and a sign that YOU ARE A "HARDCORE ELITE!" AMONG OTHER GAMERS! YOU GO! Don't pander to those filthy casuals ever. They ruin everything, but not us demanding you play one way and no other way and worship kills like it's you're new savior.

2. It's a reiteration of #1 up there. You want that one bullet one life type of thing. That's not what this game is about. In a market flooded with one shot one kill stay hidden or cry games, I am not surprised that everyone wants only one thing anymore. Again, even with the bullcrap maneuvers I see pulled and some of the hilarious moments of a guy running C4 into a room full of people like a jihadist, it's all unscripted. The combat changes as people are threatened and react. Having trouble smashing through that enemy force, max crash is called.... Unless someone happened to be brave enough and lucky enough to force themselves in there with C4 or mines and dropped'em in crushing the frontline... Or a lib stuck their gun into the doorway... or a tank shoved their barrel in.... Or a 4-wheeler drove in... I mean there's options here. You won't see that in other games.

3. **** SNIPERS. The usual derps that sit back picking off one or two protecc'ing their precious K/D while the squad's trying to objective play and could REALLY USE A SNIPER TO KILL THIS MG RIGHT ABOUT NOW can just sit out somewhere else. There are those exceptions to the rule, but they're just that. Exceptions. Here in PS2, they're still a bane to those thinking they're safe, but they're no longer such an integral part of a squad that never sticks to it that you notice their absence... Unless you count that one that just hacked the enemy vehicle pad delaying their deployment of armor for a moment while he kills anyone trying to fix it... Or the vehicle terminal camping one that stops them from getting near it for a bit more... Or those helpful souls hacking infantry terminals to allow us to change classes and resupply without an engy or implant. Or those turret hacks...

4. Sniper fluff job. Moving on. (I know you like those shots of a sniper holding up a .50cal with the bodies of his dead enemies surrounding him while he smiles. Some of us don't.)

5. Except that we already have that. In fact, I'd like the removal of some aspects of say... the light assault getting enough explosives to make a heavy blush and the specialization of roles to be a little more clear cut. AKA: Down with the ASP program. I'd like the heavy infantry to retain their AV role in a harder capacity. I'd like snipers to not get explosives. I'd like medics to retain what they do sans explosives too. Basically I want those crazy roles where people happen to specialize and if you meet something you're not specialized for... Well you're boned. It doesn't require a "If you die in the game you die in real life" approach to do these things.

Not sure how I worded it, but I meant that Squad was in beta, but after checking again, they're calling it alpha.

As for more people in bigger stuff, that's basically the current name of the game. That's even more the case in Planetside because the higher the ttk, the more numbers matter.

You mentioned this game not feeling stale. There's two important things to look at. This game has a ridiculous amount of choices and individual playstyles. I've spent thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars trying everying possible on every faction, and I haven't touched a lot of what's out there. I'd say there are a ridiculous amount of ways to attack a situation on the micro level. My criticism, is that if a game has 1,000 ways to roll a ball down a hallway, you're still just rolling a ball down the hallway. This game is incredibly stale on the macro level. And I blame 2 things, our restricted bases, and our lattice system.

Restricted bases: Yes, you can play it with one of thousands of combinations if classes/skills/guns, but each base has a cookie cutter way in which it's fought. Routers helped this a little, and construction was a big let down in mixing things up. No deploy zones was also a big negative hit.

Lattice: Fights essentially skip from base to base. Open land is meaningless. Intercepting convoys or setting up road blocks don't matter, when everyone galbdrops or uses beacons. It looks like we have an open world, with lots of options, but we may as well have a list of bases to select from on a screen.

This isn't so off topic. I think OP is feeling the frustration of my first example of bases, but the solution can't solely rest on the spawn system. With infinite and quick lives, you need few choke points to control the flow of troops. It's not cleverness that wins most fights, it's more and constant pressure of bodies. There are some bases where you can flank, like you mentioned, and that's my preferred play style, but it's not nearly as common or beneficial in this game compared to others. I'd like to see bases opened up, so each force would have to shift and move as they continually struggle for an advantage. Not sit behind a choke point till one side gives up. That's boring. But, with no funnels to control the flow of troops, it would become purely a numbers game unless there was some way to limit the spam of lives. Even if it's just a 5 or 10 second penalty on death once some little counter is exhausted. I just think there's lots of room for improvement.

Erm. I intercept sundies often and often that prevents them from establishing a foothold till someone drives me away. Gal drops aren't infinite either. Drive'em off, kill'em, do what you need to. I don't see how anything proposed would fix that base issue.

Also the "it's all the same" argument is another one of those dangerous roads to travel. All shooters are about killing the other team and conquering the map in some form. Break that down further and all shooters are just about putting crosshairs over the enemy soldier and clicking your mouse. It's not hard to be dismissive with that argument about pretty much anything, but that argument accomplishes nothing. All FPS keys are broken down to the basic WASD, mouse movement at the end of the day. Some even let you hold E or F occasionally. OooOooo.

The game is stale cause we've played it... for six years and I don't need to tell you that anything done for a long period of time becomes average to us. Go take a break, go play something else for a bit then come back. It might feel a bit different. Again, we have a myriad of tactical options, but for some reason I see you want to put blinders on and pretend they don't matter. Gal drop is ONE option out of several. It's not your only option, but it is fast for a quick hit. How do you counter it? Kill'em. Heaven forbid we shoot the opposing force in a shooting game, right?

Are you arguing for an open area hex like what we used to have? Cause if you are, I'm wholly against that unholy abomination. I remember those days, I don't want them back. Secondly, those games you mention, the maps are static. It's the same grind over and over. I've already heard grumbling in those communities about it feeling stale, and well... it will. There's not much content there and the frontlines don't move much. Here they do. It's a bit cookie cutter, but we're talking about a MMOFPS. Want your computers to stutter more? Be my guest, but don't expect performance to remain high the more you push density of objects. It's just kinda a thing you gotta live with doing a BIG player count like this.

Our frontlines move constantly. New areas move and are fought over. They feel familiar to us cause again... six years. Still there's more variation in areas I'm fighting in than in other shooters. The maps alone are monstrous.

Also, I've generally spoiled enough pushes by killing spawners that I'm a bit confused. I feel many a time that I've contributed heavily to a push or a defense. I've gone in on foot and know I've made a difference. In the massive 100+ fights it gets a little iffy on doing much, but that's just the nature of those massive player counts. The endless stream you seem to hate. It's one of the unique points to PS2 that pretty much no one else has. Period. It's chaos and good luck on organizing that. As it stands, this is actually the only game I've seen near constant objective play in regardless of player count. I can't say the same for ArmA/PS/Squad/Battlefield/CoD. The moment you can explain to me why people objective play in this more than in those games, you let me know.

In fact, let me sell you a different narrative. Soldiers in an army dying for the cause to take that point to retain a base. Setting up that flag knowing they'll die. The players will respawn, sure, but I've seen so many last moment pushes brought on by people pushing through otherwise solid odds against them to retake the base timer at 2 seconds. This happens a fair bit actually. I'd say that's a pretty tense moment, and that's what you're wanting to do away with. No thanks.

You also ignore terrain. I can position nearly ANYWHERE on a base to stall and harass enemies attempting to retake a point. The right man in the right spot can indeed ruin a push. The right amount of pressure in the right spot can break a defense. Again, I don't see where you're coming from as any shooter can be classified as "cookie cutter" by your logic. In PS I just use the same mounds of dirt to get to the other mound of dirt while firing. Same with squad. Same with any other shooter. Here I'm allowed far more freedom in my approaches. The final goal is the objective in mind, the capture point. How are these others ANY different? Tell me.

Your reply to everything is that the criticism was invalid. But numbers don't lie. If there weren't serious reasons to criticize this game, then it would be doing much better than it has in its history. Seriously, every other AAA military shooter has tried and failed to bring more numbers to the fight. There's a serious market for large scale battle. But the only game that succeeded to bring those numbers is struggling, being passed off after a few failed years?.... Stop white knighting for just a little bit and try to see that plenty of complaints are actually rooted in real problems with this game. Redeployside, terrible A2A, no meaningful vehicle combat, zero value to fighting over terrain, rampant exploiters, years of inability to deal with cheaters, balance adjustments with a sledgehammer, complete disregard of pts feedback, and yes, a severe lack of options on the macro level. This game has always struggled, from the beginning, and for very good reasons that most of us would like to see fixed. Keeping your head in the sand won't accomplish anything.

Whew, the angst is real. If the game is that crappy, why are you still here? Why are people still playing?

Game STUDIOS have come and gone in the time PS2 has been a thing.

If it's all useless, why do anything? Stop breathing, survival is useless. Stop posting, your writing is useless. Why are there forums here? They're useless!

I'ma let you take a step back for a minute and take a few deep breaths. Calm down. Return when you're ready to actually compare what makes it different. I feel I've got a pretty good inkling, but you're just angry.

PS2 COULD be better, but I don't think becoming yet another victim to the "tacticool" buzzhypefest that modern games are waddling towards is it. If you don't think flanking, killing sundies deployed in stragetic locations, coordinating forces, moving forces around, and generally working together like I hear in command chat is tactical... Again, define tactical. Define depth. Does PS2 not meet these requirements? I think it does.

Can we at least agree the relation between Air & Ground is crap?
Flak, isn't enjoyable to either side, on average.
Complete-Specialization to use a Deterrent-Style weapon, when only G2A Flak is Deterrent, isn't enjoyable either.

You misunderstand me. I'm one of the calmest people around, and the last to get flustered from silly debates online. And I've given plenty of praise to PS2 for what it's done right, I'm just not blind to its many, many faults.

As for "tactical", I can tell you what isn't, a single viable staging area, sometimes a 2nd, and one or two choke points at which two sides mindlessly throw bodies. Of course that doesn't define every battle, but it does define many of them.

So essentially you want more variance in places people can approach from. More spawn room locations? Also, if it's trouble spawning in one room... Spawn in a base behind and bring up a sundy? I mean... It's not exactly what I'd call higher thinking to do so. I've often deployed stealth sundies in annoying spots to get another place for people to come from.

If you're thinking about just coming from one point, that's on you for not realizing you have other options you don't want to employ. If you haven't been able to guess it by now, I'm basically saying you're incorrect about "tactical options" on a fundamental meaning level. You can't claim other games have more tactical options because... they don't. Simply put. The systems proposed do not add tactical options. They limit them.

I also said you're angsty cause you called me a white knight. Not my intent to protect the game. That's the dev's job. What I will do is ask for a call to clarity when someone's trashing something not broken. Are there improvements to be made? Yes. Is it utter garbage? No. Else why are you still here? You also seem to ignore this game has been running, and I'll say it till I'm blue in the face, for six years and that's enough to fatigue ANY game. Name another shooter that's lasted this long with as big a player base with as little marketing money thrown into it. Your bigger companies still have name brand recognition behind their games, but this game is a relative unknown blip for the most part.

Also, i don't think the "tactical" portion of the other games is what people worship. It's a word people don't seem to associate with them. Fidelity. You can be unrealistic, but as long as you're consistent with your logic and have high fidelity in your sounds and stylings, games tend to be received better. Least that's what I've noticed. Considering the update to DX11, I believe there's a little push that direction now that hardware can do a bit better job of rendering. Clean up the network code, vehicle pop in, hit detection and other problems and I believe you'd have a different playing game. Add in some more weapon stylings or tweak existing ones to be a little more standout-ish like the newer rifles introduced, get some sound reworked in there, perhaps tweak some particle effects to give more feedback such as dirt splash... Might be surprised.

LordKrelas: That's another thread. I've already responded to that there.