Stalemates are killing/killed the game..The Maps are horribly designed for Tactics..Infantry suffer!

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Rustler, Mar 14, 2013.

  1. Rustler

    Ok guys....I been playing this game since August, I loved it.

    Their was stalemates back then like their is now but now is just getting way too repetitive for me to even like playing the game anymore, not to mention the fact that people have gotten used to the stalemates now at the exact same spots so is not as easy as it was thru break thru.


    So here's the Problem with the game.

    Basically this is most of the maps

    [IMG]

    As you can see is very open which benefits vehicles, they are design for vehicles to push push and push with large Zergs.......Until we come to these buildings

    [IMG]

    This little structure is where we can actually get decent infantry fights.......This little structure is suppose to hold 100's of people?...I mean seriously.

    Now their is Facilities which are bigger, but they are designed to be stalemates as well....The biodome is designed to be a stalemates of push and push...with the small shield doors, etc.

    This what we need...More cover.

    [IMG]
    Doesn't have to be trees, could be anything but we just need lots of cover.

    All around the map, so we can have good infantry battles all around the map, not just chokepoints designed for Empires to push....

    If we had cover all around the map, we will see true TACTICAL gameplay...Where small squads could destroy platoons because their would actually be cover.

    The cover just adds more tactical options for troops and everybody.....This variety will make battles never playout the same and feel like the same old Stalemates from yesterday.


    I find it embarrassing that games like COD/BF which are designed for 16-64 players have way more cover than Planetside 2.

    [IMG]



    So yeah Im tired of the game consisting off 100's of vehicle outside the tower/facility.....with stalemates happening inside....This is the life of the infantry at the moment.

    This is killing planetside.
    • Up x 3
  2. Goretzu

    PS1 had much more useable cover, choke points and defensive structures than PS2 (barring AMP stations and Biolabs to a degree).

    AND IT HAD DOORS ON BUILDINGS! (the effect of this cannot be overemphasised !)

    It had rivers with bridges with bunkers at each end. Now that is not to say it didn't suffer from base to base zerging, but PS2 seems to have gone even further in that direction.








    However what PS2 really needs is a proper City Fight zone (they just need to do it much better than the Alien Disco zone that was Core Combat).
    • Up x 2
  3. Rustler

    Yeah I played Planetside 1.


    People use Planetside 1 chokepoints to justify the horrible Planetside 2 chokepoints...IMO Planetside 1 is way different game and the chokepoints just dont feel that bad compared to planetisde 2.


    Planetside 1 wasn't a perfect game but it had way more cover around the maps like trees.

    [IMG]
    [IMG]
    Imagine if we had this kind of cover outside facilities and Towers.....It will lead to way better infantry battles



    I really hope they add cover all around the map....but I doubt, they will waste effort in doing so because it might be too much work.
  4. quicKsanD

    Thank you guys so much for posting these images. I completely agree and have been thinking about resubbing to PS1 just to post images like this. Seriously why isn't there more infantry cover around bases. I mean why would people build bases are that can be shot at from every direction.

    Forseral:
    [IMG]


    Hossin:
    [IMG]

    Ceryshen:
    [IMG]

    Esamir:
    [IMG]

    You see the way we used to play the game is we would hide the AMS in forest behind cover and zerg either into the base or to the back door. I mean look at the way the continents are designed now with the wide open spaces, its horrible. Look at the images above even Esamir has trees and cover for infantry and the AMS.

    There is no reason to have the kind of bare landscapes we have now. I understand it is a desert in north Indar but come on add some more rock formations or something. I like having, tanks, jets, and infantry all in the same battle, but I remember these great battles in PS1 where tanks couldn't go everywhere because the tree were so close together. It took skill to maneuver around them at speed while your gunner was shooting.

    I like PS2, I really do but there is so much impassible terrain that tries to create the defenses for a base. Why not just give it more cover. Maybe more jump pads ISN'T THE SOLUTION.
    • Up x 1
  5. LordMondando

    Food for thought- given the state of the game at present. More objects on map, more stuff to render. Large computational task in delibering each frame.

    Its not like peformance is a problem or anything.
  6. Rustler

    So the current system right now off Zergs of hundreds of Vehicles outside a tower/facility while a Stalemate off hundreds of infantry in small chokepoints designed for 16 vs 16 is better for Performance?

    Those objects will make the battle have more variety and be more open...might actually help performance because of that.

    Either way Planetside 2 needs more cover all over the map.
  7. Maidere

    You dont understand how it works, do you? They problem is to render players/vehicles, not the environment.
  8. LordMondando

    I'm simply making a point, by adding in more objects into the enviroment, your giving the render engine a lot more gemetry to keep track of, making the culling checques more intensive etc. Not the sort of stuff thats going to be computationally equivalent to protien folding, however its not going to be for free.

    As PS2 has a lot of problems with performance, this is a salient point in a debate about whether this should be included NOW or not.

    Indeed, plenty of engines demostrate the fact that the more objects you have on screen (rendering a forest vs. rendering a open field) ceretis paribus, you have lower performance. Indeed, consider the current impact of rendering flora on performance in PS2's performance.

    I not saying its a knock down point, only something worthy of consideration, which this thread (and others) are yet to weigh in as a point.

    Flip out at me and claim 'I don't get it' if you wish.
    • Up x 1
  9. Alesteex

    I'm sorry, but a "city" zone would just be a gift to LA.
  10. quicKsanD

    Exactly and I wan't it.
    • Up x 1
  11. Munq

    PS2 does have a lot of infantry cover around the facilities. But outside of them, not so much. Saying that PS1 had better cover for infantry outside bases can be easily argued over. Certainly PS1 had its places, and there were more of them simply because there were a lot more continents. It might also appear that there was relatively more cover for infantry because of harsher restrictions for vehicles (2-3 manned MBTs, certifications).

    Best example of excellent battlefield in PS2 is the Vanu Archives - Snake Ravine Lookout - Xenotech Labs - Crossroads "fields". It has some open areas to the north but the southern part especially has a lot of boulders, trees and other natural cover. That area is the place where I've certainly had the most "wow" moments as infantry in this game and is a stage for a great mechanized infantry type of combat where you have a lot of infantry hiding behind cover, covering friendly vehicles, fighting other infantry and enemy vehicles. Vehicles don't necessarily dominate there because infantry can easily take cover and fight back at very close range.
  12. Herrick

    Yes please, an unoptimized engine is no excuse for poor map design.

    It'd also mean that we don't need to endlessly ride the buff/nerf merry-go-round as much when you can simply restrict vehicle influence with decent map design.
  13. FateJH

    The difference between the cover that is currently in the game and cover that people want is how well it works. For example, even though you can hide behind a single tree and blindside the MBT with a rocket, there are few places where the MBT, or a completely different MBT, can't just roll around behind you with less effort than it takes the player to round the tree (especially with those common large above-ground roots). Heck, the aforementioned other MBT doesn't even need to move to get a clean shot: there are no trees covering other trees, but rather just a singleton tree and maybe a waist-high rock for meters. The most dense non-building cover I can think of are those solar cell farm in the north area of Indar, but they're placed in such a way that they can't be used as good cover.

    At this point, I don't think people care much about what it looks like.

    Edit: I just thought of another thing that would destroy even good cover and even makes it hard to dodge gunfire atb a distance - hit reporting. If an MBT knows it can hit you by shooting somewhere, even if it's not right at you, and even if just with splash damage, you have no true cover. There is no "taking the hit quietly." That's an unspoken aspect of the spawn room HEAT/HE problem: even if the MBT knows you're in the spawn room canopy but not specifically where, it would adjust its aim until it saw the red circle and then expend ammo until the target rewarded death XP.
  14. Jex =TE=

    This is PS2 - the game is just a repetitive mind numbing rinse repeat lather game with no objectives and played on one map which has 40 different locations but people only ever fight at 3 or 4 of them. Zerg starts - zerg dissipates...enemy zerg comes - enemy zerg dissipates. Run and gun all over the bases, no proper cover, no defenceable spots (except the crown) so no tactics = boring as ****

    Occasionally you get a good small fight but they are rare. Game updates just make the game worse - I don't know if anyone remembers Joint Operations from Nova Logic but they did the same thing. Game started fine and then every patch just made it worse and worse.

    I haven't updated to GU4 yet but I can see already there are complaints - when you make a F2P game and try to please everyone you end up with a POS - look at the servers now - halved in size because so many people left. They buff and nerf things so much it's obvious they haven't got a clue what they're doing and if they just stuck to their vision, rather than be namby-pamby's and kneeling before the community, we might have had a great game.

    At least games like COD or BF3 have different maps - PS2 has the crown and that's pretty much it. Might as well delete all that other wasted land so we can improve our FPS.
  15. Jex =TE=

    DP


    Some girls like that though...
  16. Rustler

    If you had more cover, the battles will be way more open than now.

    Tactics will matter, squads will be able to take on tanks.....The gameplay will be more open with more options.

    Instead of focusing on Small tower battles with 100 of tanks outside and 100 of players inside in a space smaller than 16 vs 16 FPS matches.

    So in a sense, it might actually improve performance since people won't be all cluttered together.
  17. Rustler

    Yeah it has so many locations but most are just steamrolled by Zerg Vehicles......I mean their is no objects to provide cover in the whole map, so small squads can't take on large forces.

    They really need to change the map design.
  18. Rustler

    Yeah, a better map design would go a long way.

    If it was designed for battles to happen almost everywhere instead of just a few places with stalemates.