Squad Deploy nerf exposes the horrible base design

And yet you or your outfit has made the argument many times that doing so would take too long to defend against any enemy who has done so. So you've contradicted and undermined your own opinion. The reason this is possible is because the original premise is faulty. The game is not designed around one squad or infantry only combat.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. How am I contradicting myself?

Are the bases too close together or does it take too long to redeploy, pull tanks and deal with the problem?

Or is it just easier to come to the forums and lobby for the game to be nerfed into an infantry only box shooter?

I'm absolutely blown away that you can't grasp the idea of the post after 48 pages, it's really impressive. Jak and I have both stated that we have no interest in removing vehicles from the game. If I wanted infantry only, I'd go play a game made to be infantry only, because there are plenty that do gunplay better than PS2. The problem is that too many fights are decided and instantly ended just because you showed up with lots of vehicles. Did you "win?" Sure. Are you using tools the game provides? Yep. Does it make for fun gameplay? Hell. No. That's the problem.

I think it should be clear though, you're not having a problem with vehicles, that has times when it currently is fun and should be more fun but I think this is the clear point: Parking, moving a bit once in a while, and putting suppressing fire down on a spawn room's invincible shielded entrances is boring.

The core problem is neither the infantry vs vehicles, infantry vs infantry, or vehicle vs vehicle distinctions, it has pretty much since Beta been that PS2 spawn rooms were a design boondoggle gameplay experience that continues to this day regardless of if its vehicles or infantry that has to suppress those coming out of it in order to effectively hold and flip the point.

The most readily available, already in the game solution? SCU generator being destroyed or not. Every base should have one, it ends spawn camping by ending spawn. Next on the docket after that should be spawns that are underground that are at the center of the real thing that flips bases, the SCU. Its why we used to ignore the A B and C points in Biolabs for instead tossing the SCU Shield and SCU generators and was a significant issue for special operations behind enemy lines "prepping" the bigger bases in the past.

After that, I would hope we would start to see more variation than just capture the point objectives, such as old as balls capture the flag / intel / ball mechanics - which in PS2's case could be trying to move a "football" from one end of a large base to the other or down a lattice lane, so that the objective becomes more player dynamically driven. And resource logistical targets that could be cut and spliced to open and close nanite conduits that are the Lattice lanes rather than the static pattern we currently have, which could be vehicle capture zones rather than infantry.

The game could be better, true fans point out flaws in the hopes that the game could have more moments we can share as fun, which also has an impact on this game's chances of being profitable for SOE. I know for myself personally, the time spent with the NC and how 'valuable' my SC feels there has pretty much completely turned me off the idea of purchasing any more SC and the options for this game. It would be a very different situation if I thought small unit strategy on defense or stealth mattered in this game, I would want to purchase more options to be more adaptable regardless of faction since all forces meet in unequal numbers. Could I then ask a few friends to adopt a base and creatively 'Minecraft' some unique defenses there then hold the line in epic, tense moments? Why, yes, I do think I could. As it currently stands though, I have to ask a lot of reliable online fellow gamers to play and be patient to actually defend something...

I'm not sure why the original premise is faulty as it is not one designed around one squad or infantry only combat. It's actually promoting codependent, combined arms.

There are a number of reasons and situations that pulling vehicles from an adjacent base to "deal with the problem" aren't viable. There's a point of critical mass when base design eliminates any counter other than overwhelming numbers, degrading the fight to one where opposition simply leaves. Some might like sitting in a base staring at a counter ticking down to zero without ever firing a shot, but I guess I prefer more consistent action regardless of the outcome of the battle.

Confused about the second statement. My OP (along with discussions I've agreed to with vehicle-centric players) creates an environment where vehicles are necessary.

The Dev's should pay particular attention to threads like these on Bad Base Design, and understand that changes absolutely need to be made. There's almost 1000 replies to this issue. No other topic type gets more replies except for weapon discussions.

Oh my god, this is still here.

And I'm impressed that with the amount of personal attacks that this thread is still alive.

The first point in Jak's post is build a wall around it.

The second point is remove resources.

What part of that is not about removing the strategic value of vehicles from the game? What role have you suggested for them?

The "problem" here is not that vehicles are spawn camping. The problem is spawn camping. And as long as defenders have the option of respawning, there will always be spawn camping.

What part of attackers being better prepared do YOU not understand?

Your original post does nothing of the sort. You admit that your solution is to make vehicles worthless by removing the resource cost. Resource management is part of the game. If you do it poorly, then you get overwhelmed.

Nothing you've said is a specific problem with vehicles. Every argument you've made works equally well if you insert an overwhelming number of enemy infantry.

I for one believe that resources are more harmful than helpful, and that everything that resources were implemented to do can be done way better with the current spawn timer system. Why would removing them make vehicles worthless? If anything, it would stop tank drivers from doing the single most annoying thing to friendly infantry: waiting in their tanks, not helping capture the base, just sitting outside the walls. Without resources, a lot of tank drivers would be a of a lot more willing to help out, without the fear of not being able to pull armor when needed.

The suggested role of vehicles has been mentioned multiple times in this thread. Right now vehicles dictate the fight at nearly every base and outpost in the game that isn't a bio lab. We're asking for vehicles to have less of an impact on what is essentially indoor combat. The role of vehicles should be securing the perimeter so that infantry can push in and take the point. This creates fights with multiple stages, they last longer and flow better. Far too many fights in this game are over before they start. This isn't about hand holding and everyone winning, it's about making a fun game. Preparing for defense isn't fun for people when they can just redeploy to a winning fight. You can say that players have an obligation to defend territory, and I would agree 100%, but the fact of the matter is that this doesn't hold true for the majority of the playerbase, and most people will just move on to another fight. It's about making a better game. In a perfect world people would defend territories and set up these defenses, but time and experience has shown that people aren't doing it, because it's not an enjoyable experience for most.

This I disagree with because the premise is faulty. Tank drivers are helping out if they know their role, not just sitting around outside the walls.

Personally, given the way the base mechanics work, if I am able to have a vehicle that is outside a base's walls that is under no current threat, the best course of action is assume that the enemy is smart, has pulled back a base or two and is currently on its way with reinforcements that aren't pinned down. A Tank, Lightning, Battle Sunderer, Battle Galaxy, Liberator, Harrasser, etc should be constantly on the look out for the counter-attack looking to wipe out the infantry's Sunderer and suppress the gateways to the base, which is a huge boon to the defense of that base.

If Infantry are annoyed with tank drivers protecting their flanks on the battlefield, they lack sufficient fore thought. Instead, they should be thanking them, not enough people protect the Sunderers/beacons/triage fire team of medics & engineers behind the front in your face line, air space, run scouting, interdiction missions, and lay ambushes on the approach ways. A base is good and truly lost when reinforcements are denied reaching it. In a way, since Infantry are just as capable of suppressing the poorly designed spawns, if not more so in some locales, dedicating air/vehicle resources to it is a mismanagement on the tanker/driver/pilot's resources and a better designed spawn room and base mechanics would actually encourage those vehicles to better used in a far more engaging fashion.

outfits are what moves this game forward and where the game shines. everyone can agree.
then came all the whiners with "organized outfits use drop pods and kick our *****".
so instead of catering to outfits, organized play & smaller squads.. they catered to zergfits and unorganized open platoons which are the cancer of this game.
and on the way made defending against heavy vehicle/aircraft siege and being outnumbered rather impossibro and even more anti-fun, since you have slim chances of destroying spawn options or other vehicles in time (small bases are 4 mins to cap right? and spawn system trolls everyone all the time, so sometimes you can't even spawn at nearby bases, and getting a galaxy from warpgate takes at least 2 mins.. see where im coming from?) or even breaking through the infantry camping the spawn (god knows zergfits like to overkill it with maxes, noobtubes and whatnot).

this tool was something that could also be countered.
they keep droppoding and flipping the point when you try to move to the next hex? stay on current and send people with flashes/hars/mossies to flip them before moving your main forces. and hunt their beacons (a matter of 1-2 mins to take down a beacon).
they keep destroying your sunderers? park them out of "radius", or use mine guard (GG to most pizza delievery attempts), or keep 2-3 guys guarding and repairing, or spam proxy mines around, etc. or on dev side, make more sundy garages like in esamir or scarred mesa.
they keep dropping in when you're defending? face them. they drop into the unknown. you have an advantage of knowing exactly where they are.
they droppodded your liberator? better not hover like a scrub. if not this droppod, an ESF would probably have picked you up by now.

squad deploying on dead squad leaders was broken in your opinion (i think it spiced things up tactically)? why remove it completely, why not nerf the cooldown. why not make it possible only if squad leader's body is still on the battlefield and visible (which makes squad deploy possible for like what, 30 secs-1min after he actually died).


i could go on and on about this.. im tired right now so i'll stop here.

Yes. And furthermore why defend when if the enemy has 55-60% numbers, they win the base automatically. Numbers are like an automatic win button against facilities. With such a low majority percentage, that shows us how worthless base design and the point of defending them is. Using only one facility design mechanic - walls - has failed. Putting in an extra teleporter that places defenders at the same far distance from the capture point, just at a different angle - has failed! First, it still doesn't take much numbers to overcome these mechanics, and second the walls alienate armor & aircraft roles further, let alone the fact they aren't given a capture mechanic role outside in the sector to participate in.

Resource management is part of the game? Lol, as the game is right now it's pretty clear how resources work.

Faction with 40% pop gets the most territory => gets more resources => spams tanks and shells all the spawns.
Faction with 25% gets the least territory => gets 30 resources per tick => has no way to deal with tankspam.

The resource system as it is right now is terrible and only benefits the faction with numbers.

In fact, comparing my experience in Waterson and Mattherson, it's pretty clear how the pop imbalance affects resource management. In Mattherson I just keep stocking medkits, C4s, grenades, etc without any problem. In Waterson I always struggle to maintain the stock of consumables. I don't have any problem with vehicles because I rarely pull them, but if I did the situation would be similar to that I have with the infantry resources.

Spawn camping is too ******* easy with the current base design.

I have no idea how to make this point any clearer.

Was looking for a fight today, Abandoned NS was 50%-50% with 12-24 on each side, point not compromised. I deploy over there and realize that only reason the point was not flipped yet is because none of the 24 VS guys in their Lightnings and 1/2 Magriders wouldn't bother leaving their tanks and flip the point because camping the spawn room was just much easier.

This thread instantly came to mind.

Has nothing to do with making vehicles "worthless". It has to do with allowing people to play the playstyle they've chosen rather than suffer often random, expensive, frustrating aspects of the game when their vehicle is obliterated by any number of annoying things. For instance, I pulled an AP lightning at a base far from enemy adjacency with no enemies in visible sight the other night. Less than 30 seconds later, a shredder liberator came and destroyed it. Now, if I'm a new player, I just lost 15+ minutes of being able to try out my tank because of ridiculous timers and a poorly done resource mechanic that attempts to hide under the guise of "metagame". If you make some of the changes I'm suggesting, you don't frustrate people with poor mechanics if they want to be vehicle users. In fact, you allow them a big portion of the map to play as much as they want. That being said, the implication was that there should be some overall meta changes that affect vehicle ability/power/availability, but no so restrictive that it's nothing more than frustrating. If you look deeper into my idea, you understand that vehicle availability (at least transport vehicles) becomes even more important and necessary, so you wouldn't want to automatically restrict that. It's a starting point, not the end game answer.

Your last statement is incorrect. You can break out of infantry camps in a number of ways.