Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by BuzzCutPsycho, Feb 17, 2013.
Sigh we need to 15 min cap back from ps1
I have managed to get through half of it at this point, and he does bring up some good points.
So what if it is only minutes you are saving, you think those minutes "saved" kicking out the defenders is going to result in a significant defence at the next point?
Why would that next point be any different to the last point?
The zerg will move on to capture a 250 XP point as it can do that real easy, and it will be easier still should the OP suggestions be implemented in full.
Maybe the AMS non-deployment zone might help the defenders a little, but since the zerg will have many times the player numbers of the defenders that would only be a minimal benefit to the defenders.
There is a better way to get big battles, and that's to simply give a faction a real reason to defend an area.
The resources attached to an area need to have an immediate effect on the forces involved. You can bet there would be a massive battle if somewhere like Skydock (as has been mentioned before) had an immediate effect on whether your faction could field an effective airforce.
It doesn't even need to be an "all or nothing" link that removes the ability to spawn a unit altogether, maybe the effect could be your rocket pods take three times longer to reload or your main gun loses 20% accuracy.
Snake Ravine Lookout's effect could be that your nanite generated eyepice cannot use full magnification when you try to access it.
Give a defending force a REASON to actually attempt a serious defence and you will get a decent battle at even the most minor outposts, provided the effect tied to the possesion of that outpost that your faction would lose (immediately it fell into an enemies hands) is thought out carefully.
The underlying game that gives no value to the terrain to be fought over and the benefits/penalties for holding/losing that territory will end up with faction zergs perposely avoiding contact with each other as it's easier to get XP and Certs by capping poorly defended outposts and bases than risk coming face to face with an opposing faction zerg..
i like the sound of the changes you proposed but what about adding the pain field in the spawn room but say then for 30 sec to a min after that you got 1 free instant action on that base/facility so then the attackers would have to clear the area because the defenders would have drop podded in. it would negate the spawn room camp issue, and also give the defenders 1 last chance to take the base back? thoughts?
It's not that you can't get an attack going, you can't get a defense against your attack going. People just let you ghost hack the continent.
The crown was just an example, first thing I do when I log on for solo play is see if there is a fight at the crown so I can go snipe (attacking or defending it doesn't matter to me). What he wants to avoid is a stalemate in some places, and better fights in others, making the entire continent more pleasing. The crown flips a lot more now, and you know why? Because people don't feel like defending it in order to lose the rest of the continent and because it's lost its fun, they let it get hacked, unless it's the center of everything.
I get it, I like to fight there myself, but out of everything that Buzz said, you're insight is a one line, I like my crown fight and so doesn't everyone else so bugger off? Look at everything.
Not if the outfits you contact are your enemies .. If a TR outfit organised with both a NC and VS one that on Thursdays they would only play on Esamir then the fights would happen .. This would also have a snowball effect in that if people know fights are happening between 600 people on Esamir and they hate Indar they will go and join in .
In a player driven game sometimes people need to take the bull by the horns and drive it ..
If people have tried the above and it's failed then fair enough .. If they haven't tried then they have no room for complaint
yes, minutes help, it gets people into turrets, it gets people with AV pointed in the right direction, it gets tanks pulled and ams's pulled, it gets mines on the ground. It's part of everything - I'm not saying make it easy to take down an SCU - it should take some time, and organization - and even at the smaller areas it may never even go down.
It's also just another small motivator along with everything else - like as you say - a reason to capture every point (I suggested areas around a certain base type amplify the bonus of that particular base type for instance.
i agree totaly with this post. I guess this is one of the reasons people are leaving. I hope they relize this sooner than later before there nobody left.
Eh, I don't agree with most of this. The influence system serves a useful purpose in spreading people out to multiple bases and there's risk/reward aspect to it. Bases with very little influence are more dangerous to take because they take longer, but tend to be deeper in enemy territory.
The lattice system was ok in PS1 but tended to force the entire continents player base into 1 or two fights. Is that what we want? Is it even practical with PS2s system of many more bases? It could be shoehorned in of course, like a major lattice for bases and a minor lattice for outposts. But that sounds confusing and irritating to me.
Sunderer cloaking fields? Sure we had them in PS1, but I don't see the need. PS2 has denser maps, more cover. Hide your sunderer behind cover, under trees and overpasses, etc. In PS1 you could just plop them in an open field and hope for the best. No deploy zones? Well with the tunnels sticking your sundie right next to the shield gen means AV infantry are going to keep appearing right next to it and it'll die. RIsk/reward. I don't see a need for either.
Indarside, yeah obviously that sucks. Hopefully will be alleviated with more conts and cont locking.
Pain field once the SCU blows...actually not a bad idea. Not necessary, but it would get people moving sooner.
Instant action with no cooldown. That just sucks, transport vehicles are there for a reason. There's enough information on the map to tell where to instant action in when you first log in, but no tutorial do tell the new player how to read it.
Screen shake and bullet flinch are incredibly irritating, I agree with that.
I've been playing Planetside since PS1's beta. I fought on Emerald TR alongside BuzzCutPsycho. I wasn't in his outfit and he probably doesn't remember my name, but if you flashed back to the early days, I was usually cruising with his group after my friends stopped playing the game.
In PS2, fate had it that I chose my NC character on the same server he chose his TR character so now I fight against him. Some of his recent online antics have put me off (calling himself an "online personality" is like Kim Kardashian calling herself a celebrity). But still, I regard him as the most knowledgable person when it comes to the Planetside franchise and a great spokesperson for all players of the game, regardless of faction.
BuzzCut, I agree with damn near everything you said here. I just hope that you become more humble with your new spotlight and rise above speaking only for TR and your outfit. Speak for all of us, instead - the players of Planetside, agnostic to faction. This post certainly shows you can. Nice work and great stuff as always.
Many of these I have already suggested.
Liked and bumped. Its all down to logistic, this game have none.
THE WHOLE PROBLEM OF AMS NO DEPLOY ZONES IS ALL DOWN TO TERRIBLE BASE DESIGN.
Think about it for 2 seconds; if It was PHYSICALY impossible to park a sunderer on top or 5 meters away of an objective, there wouldn't be any problem in the first place.
I'd rather have no deploy zones implemented now, even as a placeholder, than wait a year for base improvements though
I for one, would love to see a variety of bases that actually look diverse and able to fit the amount of people (And conflict) this game is lacking. Unique bases with great combat flow would make for more interesting fights and overall experiences. Also, the small territories and their sufficient bases/labs/etc. should be upgraded and made a bit larger a detailed as well.
I know this post was stated far back and way yonder, but I need to address something here.
Of course, the best things take time, but a more efficient stable foundation would have helped SOE accomplish their milestones much easier and with a bigger profit. Personally speaking, there are many variables that should have been addressed more carefully and effectively. Balancing issues, Aesthetics, Player Flow, Fluent game-play, and even latency are not at its finest, but can be.
I am in no way shape or form attempting to claim that the released product is awful or unplayable, rather I'm saying its in a level of inefficiency and lack of preparation. I say lack of preparation of how significantly large this was going to be, and how balancing would effect different servers with lower populations and higher populations.
Honestly, I would have been okay if Sony Online Entertainment decided to hold on releasing this game for maybe a year or two, where it was fully prepared and ready for the abuse (server stress) and scale of what it is attempting to reach. At the rate this game is going, I can see it surviving a good 2-4 years than the projected 5-10+ years that John Smedley is attempting to reach.There are a lot of problems, sure, but there is still time to completely change some developmental things here and there that will benefit the median as a whole.
On a a side note: I'm not entirely content with the amount of copy-pasted bases there are on Indar, regardless of the terrain, it is boring to fight for the same dull looking base, outpost, bunker there is. Esamir has a flow issue, and I personally enjoy how Amerish has an amazing amount of flow to it.
Don't get me wrong, i don't mean the following offensive;
But this is exactly what is wrong with this game. If this game would be about territory control, conquering and defending for your empire, you would rather look where you could help your faction and go there instead of playing TDM at the crown.
And that is what i allways thought Planetside was about. Not the "bigger" team deathmatch with vehicles and aircraft that we currently have.
I like how everyone is arguing that the game has become a huge deathmatch at the crown and that the community should organise events on other continents in order to avoid the boring fights that we have on Indar right now.
You are kind of missing the point...if the servers had a HIGHER POPULATION these wouldn't be issues AT ALL. We would find fights everywhere and everyone would be happy(at least happier than now).
That's why we need server merges,and we need them now.
Not from my experience playing PS2.
If you are in a squad or platoon and you get landed on by a faction zerg there is nothing you can really do to stop them, and why should you even try? Your only going to get certs for kills and assists, they get certs for kills and assists AND a capture bonus.
You might be able to hold them up for a while, but the OP wants the only place that this commonly occurs (The Crown) to be reworked so that even the Crown cannot withstand a zerg.
Numbers is all that wins in PS2 currently. Forget tactics or subterfuge. As an out and out numbers game it will fade away in a great deal shorter time than it deserves.
Until we get some way that we can thin out the opposing factions zerg PS2 is going nowhere.
A while back there were queues to get into servers, and waiting times to get onto continents too. How many of them have you seen (providing you are not a premium members) lately?
PS2 is bleeding users due to it's current lack of depth. The OP suggestions will simply strip more of what little depth of gameplay there is in here right now.
More depth is needed, reward sneaky squads who can be a thorn in the side of opponents by making their actions count. Make doing headless zerg runs less of a cherry pick by making bases WAY easier to defend and WORTH defending.
Starting to repeat myself now, so I'll leave this discussion to others, but please, read all of Buzz's posts and think about what they would mean down the line should they be implemented.
There are some real nice ideas in there, but not all of the points he raises would make a better game than we have now, flawed that it is currently in my opinion.
I'd like to play PS2 for a good while, most games have a lifespan of around 6-8 months before they get replaced by something else here, but the scale and the vision of PS2 makes it something a little special, I'd just like it to be a bit more special than it is right now.
Separate names with a comma.