Tactics in Planetside 2 are Dead: Long Live Tactics in Planetside 2

90% true.
That 10% is EXP.
One of the few things SOE has done pretty well in this game is the EXP system. It gives you the most EXP for actually being useful to your faction. So taking a control point? Lots of EXP. Spawncamping? Not so much/not at all. Padding K/D with a sniper rifle in a zerg? Sorry, no XP for you. Healing and reviving allies in the heat of battle? Yap, you get rewarded.

So what I wanted to say is that being efficient in this game IS rewarded. Leading - although currently has no meta - helps people get more efficient by coordinating their attacks and exploiting the enemy weakness.

I remember that one day we went "zerg stomping" with my outfit. We gathered a squad of Annihilators, Raven or Burster Maxes and Engineers and we deployed a sundy on a hill 300m away. We put some AV mines nearby for safety, the leader marked targets with smoke or by Q-spotting and we started "farming the farmers". You know what, that was one of the best moments I've had in PS2. The sheer ammount of XP for bringing down an entire vehicle zerg and the realisation that we won against overwhelming odds was more than satysfying. I wish for more moments like that.

Disabling re-deploy instantly might not be the best idea AT THE MOMENT, since players today are so used to the spoon fed teleport system that they have become lazy cannibalistic pests. What SOE can probably do is take a page from other games such as Red Orchestra or Mount and Blade for their capture the castle / defense modes. Take little steps for now so players can get accustomed to the gameplay.

Basically in those modes ( Red Orchestra ), attackers have a 5-10 respawn timer every time they die. The defenders on the other hand, have a LONGER respawn time of 16-25 seconds.

What we have now, attacker respawns in the sundy less than 10 seconds after dying. Defender respawns in the base less than 10 seconds after dying. I might be off by a couple of seconds but the respawn time for both defender and attacker are almost or quite the same.

Make the FIRST redeploy for defenders, INSTANT. The later ones can be longer, so then while waiting they can probably get some tanks from another base and destroy those sunderers, instead of mashing that teleport button like a dog salivating over a piece of meat. Tactics right? I bet some of you say " NO I WANT REDEPLOY FOREVER ! I DONT WANT TO WAIT 20 SECONDS TO RESPAWN ! NAO NAO NAO NAO " -_-

I'm gonna pick up on your RO2 thing.

You are quite correct about the respawn times for attackers and defenders. I will also point out that attackers can die more before running out of reinforcements. However, it is worth noting a few things that exist in RO2 which PS2 does not have.

- The majority of deaths are instant. Particularly if playing on realism mode. The bolt action rifles which are issued to the majority of players (due to time period), kill in one hit to the body most of the time.

- If they don't kill you, then you're bleeding out, and will have to almost instantly find cover to bandage, otherwise you will die anyway. This is made harder by the fact your vision goes screwy and you move more slowly.

- There are no units in the game (aside from tanks, which appear only on specific maps and specific game modes) which can tank damage. This means that breaching defended rooms or crossing open ground is harder.

- Bullet velocity is far far higher. It is easier to hit moving targets with instakill or near-instakill weapons at medium and long ranges. The best way of staying alive is to be unseen. You will see how this has a far more positive impact on the defender than it does the attacker as you read on.

- Map design is very different. Often the attackers will have to cross open ground towards a fortified location. The defenders are often given either a series of chokepoints to hold, or an excellent field of view. In planetside 2, often the attacker has the better field of view, and in some cases is able to get to capture locations more quickly and easily than the defender can.

- The maps have very defined edges. You cannot flank so easily, because you come up against the arbitrary barrier - Brick walls, impassable rubble, unswimable river, map-surrounding barbed wire and so on.

- Artillery strikes. Due to the attacker most requently having the outdoor/more exposed postion, the defender can use off-map artillery strikes to a far greater effect than the attacker normally can.

- Prone position exists. Again, this is far more beneficial to the defender than to the attacker. The attacker has to move to objectives, crossing open ground and often very quickly to avoid being killed by artillery strikes. The defender on the other hand can use cover more effectively and can remain in a prone position. to minimise their exposure to fire, and make them far harder to spot.

- Everything is grey. Like... People are grey, the environments are grey. Seeing people is hard, and distinguishing between friend and foe is often far more difficult then it is in PS2. A position can look undefended until you're right on top of it and you're already getting cut down by machinegun fire.

- Most importantly, the rounds are on a time limit. If the attacker does not successfully capture ALL the points within the time limit, they lose. This means the attacker has to be agressive and proactivity cross ground, or push through those chokepoints. In Planetside 2 for most tower fights, the attacker can simply grab two outlying points, and then shell the tower. This prevents the defender from recapturing, putting the defender on the time limit, rather than the attacker. Suddenly, the defender has to recapture their points or face eventual defeat... There is next to no incentive for the attacker to push into the capture location in the tower. In short, the roles are almost exactly reversed.

In short, yes, RO2 does certainly have the consequences for dying stacked against the defender, and is a lot more lenient on the attacker in this regard...
However it also makes killing and staying alive far easier for those in the defensive position. There are several factors that create a balance between attacking and defending in RO2 which are far more complex than simply penalising the defender in terms of respawn timers and reinforcement numbers. Those do certainly exist, but staying alive and killing more is a lot easier for the defender.

Great video, I agree with most things;
redeployside=bad,
map design=bad,

spawning however: changing your spawn timer based on "recent death frequency":
this punishes infantry players; vehicle players typically last quite some time.

You can spawn instantly at the warpgate, or at a friendly base that is
-not under attack (all points friendly)
-no enemy sunderer deployed inside the hex.
--> Unattackable bases (not able to be attacked by lattice): always instant spawn.

However.. spawning at a sundy, spawning at a base being attacked: this takes extra time.
You could make the attackers have a disadvantage here by making the timer longer if you want to deploy onto enemy territory etc.

the 'quickspawn' option is removed, you have to pick a spawn point. Maybe show your last used spawn point or something, but that's it.

I also disagree on "mixing" equipment, "everybody bring an engineer turret, lulz".
Or the other example, infiltrator with a medic tool..

Now, classes at the moment don't have a huge amount of options of course..
Medic is a good example:
-everybody gets the rezz tool, ok.
-either self-heal bubble, or shield bubble.. ok.
-frag grenades, rezz grenades, or.. healing grenades. Hmmm...
-and then: insta-heal stinger, heal over time stinger or... C4.
--> No-one brings healing grenades, many medics bring C4.

Light assault: pick your jets, grenade type and either C4 or self-heal.
So besides jets, nothing really unique; flashbang vs concussion etc.

The game could use some more tools/extra options etc,
but the core needs changing:

-what is the point of attacking a base? In Battlefield, counterstrike/whatever, you "win the match". Planetside 2 is "perpetual", but there must be a point to attacking (& winning) a base. (beyond +XP). At the moment, biolabs, techplants etc give benefits, but that is mostly it.

-More varied objectives, capture the flag style:
"The enemy has stolen blueprints of our prowler battle-tanks. We have located them _here_. Our operatives have managed to put a tracker on them, but we have lost contact. Obtain the blueprints at all costs, and bring them back to the warpgate. Move out, soldier!
So, the "TR random event" goes into action, and there are some objectives that need to be captured.
Now, one issue: what if these can be transported by air...
-> The objective is a very, very durable "sundy"; one basilisk, one kobalt, one walker, one fury. ; can't deploy, can't be repaired; you have to bring it to the warpgate. It has a weak NAR.
The catch: the enemy can board it too, and bring it to their warpgate.
Both factions can see the position on the map,
it is a sloooow vehicle.
So, the first side to get there boards it and begins to drive,
the other side gets an airforce to attack it, or maybe has ground forces around it already etc..

Bonuses: capture the blueprints, get mbt's at 350 nanites on that continent for 6 hours.

Now, instead of "megasundy", it is the VS turn, and a "megaskywhale" spawns, with damaged engines.
30 seconds till engines are operational, gogogo.

-I honestly don't think adding an extra continent would change anything at all, unless it comes with new gameplay stuff.
Events like "megasundy" and "megaskywhale" do require that the game can handle "big fights".

I hate to turn you off when you started yelling/whining about being "******" for squad leading. If you don't like squad leading, don't ******* do it. It should be its own reward, winning fights/bases is the reward, competing against other organized outfits, or ROFLSTOMPING a bunch of disorganized LWs is the reward.

I always liked the bases in PS1 that you had to run/drive the little ball or whatever it was to another base to cap it and the base could be flipped again during that time iirc

Not to mention pilots had a fun game of "chase the ball on the map!"

Man when you die you just respawn to the closest sunderer / spawn room / squad vehicle / spam beacon like you've always done. And we've done as well.
Eliminating redeployside doesn't mean you have to restart from the warpgate every time you die

It just means you can't move to distant bases at will like if you had a personal teleporter.

... God damnit. Don't you just hate when you spot typos in your post after it stops being editable?

I love big zerg/epic fights, but they must have some kind of sense!

(1): FPS drop like hell and game cant handle large amount of player in one hex (lag spikes, Desync, rendeder problem)-Viz Matherson VS Watterson server smash.

(2): If you use vehicles/aircraft/foot to zerg thats ok. Another thing is, when you zerg like 96+ press U wait 15s and rush from spawns. Thats a major different. In typical game you can fight against zerg. In Planetside you cant defend, reduce or even stop Zerg due to redeployside 96+ "magic pop".

(3): You can actually fight against redeployed zerg in Planetside now, but only with your zerg. Which is not bad idea. Bad idea is fight 96vs96+ zerg in bases, which was not designed/balanced for this amount of players, so it will change to single *********** (*1). Especially when you have whole 5000x5000meters space to fight around you, so zerg will not be that "thick", but you keep fighting in spaces like 50x50meters with hundreds of people. Thats the main problem of Redeploy-side effect!

The problem I often see in the "omg tactics ded; ded gaem OMG SOE pls fix meetagaem" argument, is that all too often many proposed or eliminated (as in, that were in the game some time ago but were replaced with simpler system, such as the Hex territory system) "metagames" and "strategy games" either operate under the assumption that the entire game is played only be super-organized outfits with a Teamspeak server (Hex system), or massively screw over the faction with the smallest advantage or least territory control (Old Resource system).

What I want to say is that until now, all attempts of "strategy" only worked on paper for highly organized outfits and completely cut off the unsquadded/un-outfitted/pub players. Unfortunately, the highly organized outfits are not the majority of the players and therefore they nerfed that type of strategy and meta to allow everyone to have a fun time, albeit in a dumbed down game.

Was it a good idea? From a business and mass gameplay standpoint, yes. You are allowing more players to enjoy your game and you are also increasing the potential earnings from them (because since more people enjoy the game, more people will start buying SC or memberships).

However, I do feel that Planetside 2 really lacks something without its strategy and metagame systems. The real problem at this point is, how do we make strategy and metagame for the organized outfits, without cutting off pubs and casuals from them? How do we make the masses part of that strategy, instead of just leaving them at the edge and telling them "Mic and serious outfit or ****", which is ultimately damaging for the game as a whole?

Teamwork needs to be something that naturally involves all players in the game, not some sort of "sub-game" restricted to the organized outfits and platoons.

For lone wolf- INSTANT ACTION. Our goal is create more dynamic and fun fights for players who like run n gun action. Not 2x 96vs96 *********** biolab. Ambushes, defend, attack, crashes and more of this. With reasonable amount of players and some kind on fair play and sanity to keep fight alive. Lone wolf will still have they 360MLG fights, which will be much more better, but players like we will have our sandbox to play-Logistic and all around meaningfull leadership.

The game isn't losing the tactical gameplay. What we viewed as tactics was an unfortunate side-effect of a developing product.

It is being slowly honed into exactly what the devs intended.

A gigantic farming exercise designed to tap into the "Farmville" game-play ethos.

Drop in, farm, and log off.

Like a ******* sputnik.

I think you pretty much covered everything. Leaders don't need fancy hats or pauldrons to reward them, what they need are more tools and various tactical and strategical abilities as well. Binoculars that set waypoints or mark target areas are a great idea. Being able to call in a mass smoke bombing would be great. Surgical strikes would be awesome. Basically, tools that are not meant for farming but instead to make leading more powerful.

For reference, bad/unnecessary moves to making leadership more important:
-small bits of XP coming from your minions xp earnings
-being able to unlock nice hats for your work
-special titles

All of these are superficial and add nothing to tactics and leadership. Some examples of good things would be:
-commander menu that allows you to use CRXP (gained through platoon xp during that session, would transfer to next commander upon commander DC or leaving the platoon) for various abilities such as AoD weapons and surgical strikes (OS comes into play here, except less AOE)
--Could also call down neutral, cheap effects like smoke screens or fake units (show up as a model in game and on the map screen, like a super sized decoy grenade)
--Would also allow buffs for your troops called in as well, such as ROF/Damage/accuracy/health etc. but being expensive enough that you would use these sparingly
--would be a core feature for the update (the menu and CRXP)

-a spotter tool that grants your troops more damage against a specific unit that you have called out

-a binoculars tool that allows you to mark targets, place waypoints, and other things so that you can coordinate without getting yourself killed (Attlas's idea, that I expanded upon)

-buffs to units around you and your squad leaders, only thing that gives xp on this list and you have to have it out to be using it. Maybe a primary weapon so you are not too versatile (commanders look more BA with a pistol out anyways)

These add more strategic and tactical tools at your disposal. AoD is bad if spammed, but if only be limited to maybe 20 or so people in the server it won't be too bad. Buffs around you and your troops make it so that a leader could also be on the frontline with your guys (squad leaders would have the same buffs, so you can still orbit in a valk and use your binoculars instead of trying to sort the chaos while on foot). When to call in these options is a matter of resource management. If you only get a surgical strike every 30 minutes, you bet your *** people will use it conservatively. These weapons should also not give xp, because the last thing we want is some commander to just nuke Hondadude/Daddy/[insert server specific farmer here] for xp bonuses.

I feel that this should probably take priority over pretty much everything except the resource revamp part 2/3. We really do need a return of tactics, strategy, and leadership in Planetside 2.

I'm going to pick at this for a moment, but I want to let you know that I am playing devil's advocate, sort of.

There has been many posts where this style of play has been called trolling and disruptive. They have even called out for ways for players that do this to be actioned on their accounts. As well as ways for the game to be fixed so this isn't possible. For many players they simply can't deal with it.

And THAT my friends, is where the problem is. SOE is a business, and players are their customers. They are going to go by what the majority of players want and give them that. We can say we won't spend another dime on the game. We can even band up and do it. But there's always going to be enough cert farming little zerglings that cover the losses.

The solution to this general problem is peer pressure. Nothing works better on a 15-30 year old than peer pressure. This entails a variety of tactics to deal with. Look at what is 'popular' with these players. High KDRs, Pro Skills at X class or Y vehicle, and other non-tactical gameplay. What needs to happen here is change the narrative of what is considered good and skilled.

This means goading these players. Insulting and ostracizing them. Making them feel left out. Make them outcast. When these players feel like they aren't 'cool' anymore, they will do one of two things. They will either quit, or change. Both outcomes are in our favor. If they change, then they will be on board. If they quit, then their dollar is no longer worth as much as our dollar.

If we can control the narrative within Planetside 2 and determine the gameplay norms. Then we can get the devs to change the Meta to suit it. Many are going to come in here and say that we shouldn't try to control how people play. What I am suggesting is Nothing of the sort. We are only doing what these players have always been doing. They haven't changed our style of play. But they have changed the narrative, and all I'm proposing is we change it back. When the game changes back, they can still cert farm to their little heart's content, but they will no longer influence changes to the game like before.

This requires conviction and gall, as well as teamwork to pull off. These are all traits we possess or at least claim to possess, since that's the style of game we want to play. So you'll have to be ready to keep playing in a tactical manner despite how the game changes. You have to be prepared to treat cert farmers in a negative way. This doesn't mean to break the rules. But we don't have to break rules to put pressure on them.

In the forums, counter their claims against tactics with logic. Instead promote counter changes to make the game even more teamwork oriented (helps leadership) and tactical.

In game, call out the little cert farmers and berate them for being useless to the team. Don't TK though, we will not stoop that low. Usurp command from Platoon/Squad Leaders who are leading a cert farm. Basically say "hey if you guys want to win, join #### squad" And start a squad with that name and put in the description that you're there to win, not cert farm.

When you all run platoons and squads make it clear cert farming isn't welcome. And enforce those rules. Call them out By NAME when you are about to boot them. "Soandso is a cert farming zergling, goodbye" Do everything you can within the rules to make them feel utterly useless about themselves.

In other forms of social media.. its the wild west out there. Do everything you can that are within the limits of those sites' rules.

Outfits should be aggressive. Take over the faction on your server. This doesn't mean being a zerg fit, but be the name known for kicking butt and taking names. Strength and Power attract like minded individuals. Be the force that dictates how your faction rolls alerts.

Respect your fellow tactical player. Even if they don't suggest something you agree with, support them and add in your own suggestion rather than try to prove them wrong. We're on the same team, and we all bring something to the table. On the flipside aggressively debate, debunk, and discredit anyone trying to change the game to favor non-tactical gameplay.

Basically work together as a team in game and out of game. Aggressively take on our foes.

i'd say that depends on the time frame. if they were only supporting it for a few years then ok,
but supposed to be supported to 2025 or sometime, and the game gives almost nothing more than any other FPS............ BF/CoD'ers mostly get bored because unlocks unlocked etc, then they unlock them all again when the 'new' sequel comes out. PS2 can't do that as the current plan is not to have a sequel for at least 12 years.

they're trying to hold players who get bored with unlocks over the short term.............. with unlocks!
anyone who gave a **** about directives did them within pretty much a month(barring progress loss bugs) how can they possibly add enough content to provide 'new' unlocks when it takes 6 months for a new vehicle!
so over the long term a bad business decision.

That is exactly the point that is so hard to develop the game around. How do we treat pubbies/lone wolves in relation to tactical outfits? I wouldn't be surprised if this question created quite a few heated debates over at SOE. I personally believe that the key is integrating pubbies and wolves into the actual tactical game. You said that instant action is for lone wolves, which is correct. So, why don't we let the RTS-style platoon leaders who are leading the tactical game decide where those wolves will drop pod? Make it so that the leaders can somehow control the flow of public spawns to direct pubbies to where they are needed. Basically, imagine it as a Dota 2/League of Legends match - the leaders and their squads are the heroes, the pubbies are the creeps/minions. Pubbies/creeps fight on their own but are subtly controlled by heroes/tactical squads. Pubbies/creeps are vital to capturing bases/blowing up towers, but are directed by heroes/tactical squads so that their efforts are not wasted into a zergfest or meat grinder. It should be suble, but effective.

That is my ideal mechanic for tactical play, I think it's really sad that SOE seems to see the pubbie FPS and the tactical RTS groups as opposing factions who need to be favored or weakened instead of assets who can work together; and this misconception is at the base of the current "nerf tactics/metagame" mindset that the devs seem to have adopted.

It is a fundamental truth of the Universe that when the words 'Planetside 2' and 'tactics' are found to be used in any context to each other that a third fundamental word of 'chess' is also to be found.

Try it, no matter how hard you try to disprove this you will find it to be as reliable as death and taxes.

These three words are - somehow and beyond the ken of mere mortals - inextricably linked to each other and may very well be etched into every atom in existence.

As spooky as the continual occurrence of the number 42.

You can't possibly solve the problem of players zerging. If they are afraid of dying or want to stat-pad their K/D they will form zergs no matter what and you can't stop them. Pro pilots like MattiAce discouraged the usage of AA lock-on missiles and pilots who used them automaticaly earned the title of a "lock-on scrub". Did that work? Not to a degree. I still see lots of AA lock-ons being used everyday. Furthermore I sometimes use them myself as they are a really efficient weapon, especially if your nosegun is AI-oriented and you don't want to be 100% defenseless.

BUT we can do better than MattiAce and all those Elites because we have an advantage : We can come up with a reason! A reason why players should stop zerging! Instead of calling spawncamping and similiar tactics lame and blame others we can actually show that being in a squad can be COOL and REWARDING. That having a plan and cooperating to win against sometimes even overwhelming odds IS profitable and way more FUN than zerging(and that's actually what I tried to show in my post)

I seriously doubt we can discuss with SOE's top management about their strategic decisions but that's exactly how I feel. Planetside 2 should focus much more on its own unique features like big maps, coordination between players, "sandbox" approach to battlefield.
Content should be created by improving these features, creating new scenarios and opportunities, new options for smart fighting. Instead we got... farming achievements?

Planetside 2 should really steer towards a smarter warfare, something that rewards more coordination and organization, rather than spamming and farming. And for those who want easy battles, no thinking, no waiting, the option is already there:

Well, i am sorry to say he is 100% right....

I dont even got the sh*** helmet -.-.