Too many Sunderers

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Bitterclaw2, Nov 27, 2014.

  1. Bitterclaw2

    I'm in total agreement with some of the negative comments on Redeployment that have been prominent over the last few days. In one thread the OP gave an example of an excellent tactical attack on a base by his 2 or 3 squads and aircraft, only to get zerged at the last minute by an overwhelming Redeployment to the base they were attacking. A good tactical attack failed because the defending side just Redeployed overwhelming numbers who secured the base, took out the attackers Sunderers and Valkarie, then Redeployed back to where they were before.

    I've had a similar situation today, but instead of us attacking, we were defending a base

    At first it was fine, we were 24 v 24, and the 3 control points were going either way, but it was fun. However, after an hour or so of this, 8, yes I'm serious, 8 enemy Sunderers turned up with 2 Harassers. They obviously were unable to all deploy at the same time, but as soon as we killed one, another one deployed and then the destroyed one's place was quickly taken up by another arriving Sunderer. Then the world exploded as they had 3 of the 8 Sunderers deployed and out popped loads of enemy. What started off, and was fun, at 24 v 24 for over an hour, very soon became a 24 v 96+ annihilation and we were then totally spawn camped until the base flipped.

    After getting killed with less than 2 mins on the clock, I deployed one base back and started running towards the fight again as an HA, at least in an attempt to be able to fire some rockets. Just getting out of the spawn room was a relief. However, the base had flipped and I mosey on in to find only a few enemy still there, no Sunderers, no Aircraft overhead, no Harassers anywhere, the darned lot had flipped the base and redeployed back to where they had originally come from. Gave up and logged out in a rage.

    I have said it before and I'll reiterate. The devs need to look at the Redeployment option. I'm not saying don't allow Sunderers to be able to deploy troops, I'm just asking them to look at only allowing one Sunderer of each faction in a Hex at the same time. It won't stop them Redeploying to the Sunderer, but it gives the defending or attacking faction (whichever the case may be) to at least have a chance of killing the Sunderer, thus putting an end to the zerging at that time. The enemy then have to bring in to that Hex another Sunderer if they so please,
    which will take time so that enemy that are killed don't just respawn outside the base wall and re enter the battle.

    There's no negative influence to dying in this game. You can be attacking and take a chance on something, fail and pfffff, no problem, respawn 50 metres away to the Sunderer and try again. No fun, no fun at all Devs, especially when a well thought out attack is destroyed due to Redeployment and to numerous Sunderers.
    • Up x 2
  2. BlueSkies

    So... if you're driving a Sunderer towards a battle and there is already a Sunderer in that hex, you'll just hit an invisible wall at the border? :confused:
  3. uhlan

    Well, it took me a while to understand that the game is about spam and instant gratification.

    It's not about strategy, not about depth, the battles have very little meaning.

    You are typical of folks coming to the game and hoping that there was a point to be played for.

    At first, I thought it was a balance issue or that the devs were just trying to figure it all out.

    After two years, however, I realize this is exactly how it's supposed to be.

    People, the crowd the devs have cultivated over the years, don't want downtime, don't want to have to work toward anything especially where teamwork is involved. Even outfits specialize in spam for the most part.

    It's about getting into battle, spamming for a bit then logging off.

    It's glorified "gang" warfare... in colorful pajamas for outfits.

    And like Farmville with guns for the drop-in's or casuals.
    • Up x 10
  4. NinjaKirby

    Bitterclaw2, I haven't traversed these threads (or Forums) for a while. And from a fresh outlook, the main problem to me appears to be value of one's life, and players throwing it away only to near-instant respawn is an issue.

    It's great this game can provide for over a hundred player battles in one base. It depends on your point of view, but in your case they are abusing this lack of limitation to roll around as a horde and trample everything.

    We can't limit the numbers involved (Since that is PS2; massive battles), so life has to be more valuable. Make it so Nanite costs are inflicted on respawns; not onto the individual player pools but the pools the Sunderers could have. We can't allow flooding of tons of squads and randoms pouring through a single Sunder, because if there initial attack somehow fails, or even if they lose one third/half there troops.... they need to brunt the cost of this mistake.

    The same would have to be done vice versa: 100's of people can't just keep pouring into a base via re-deploy to defend it. Eventually the pool of nanites will wane and dry up, and people will actually have to use Logistics for once to get themselves to the base. And while they are using Logistics, take some Tanks and an Ant, or whatever the PS1 nanite refill thing was called.

    It's an issue respawn is completely uncapped and uncontrolled, and infinite "drop-in" power I believe can't remain.

    Hopefully the last phase of Resource Revamp actually addresses this.

    The above is just my take on the matter.

    Edit: More Sunderers btw, would then be fine, because they'll have choice of respawn sites for getting all those Sundy's there but (should) all sap from the same pool of nanites.
    • Up x 2
  5. Titan6

    I agree with the players, and the devs on this issue.

    The Players: I understand the frustration when these sort of things happen. It almost seems like small, mid-sized battles are not possible. Whenever a good fight starts, a platoon reacts and shuts it down with overwhelming numbers (PHX, GOKU, AOD)

    However, the game is promoted as a huge battle, and lets all be honest, most players attention spans are not long enough to warrant them having to actually find the fight. So the devs need a system that gets those players, into a fight quickly, so that they stay on and play. Without those players, the more tactical players wouldn't have much to do.

    I love the idea of only physical transportation, but I understand the limitations of it.

    I think the best way to solve this issue is to get rid of redeploy and only allow instant action--thus eliminating rapid and concentrated movement of troops--or put a world-wide cool down on redeploy. Not just players. The server itself would have a cool down on it. This way, you could still plan for a mass redeploy, but only rarely, and all factions have the same trump card. However, once the cool down is reached, it doesn't expire. So the platoon that holds on to theirs can use it when necessary.
  6. FateJH

    Nah. You just blow up without warning.
  7. Tander09

  8. Crator

    How to solve this? Bring in the PS1 combat engineer tools!

    *Redeploying and Sunderers isn't an issue.... The issue with redeploy is you can select a base across the entire map that you aren't anywhere near.
    • Up x 2
  9. FieldMarshall

    Planetside + Battlefield = Planetside 2.
    The two dont mix well though...

    Solution? I dont know, maybe add more of the things that made Planetside 1 work, and move away from the CoD/BF meatgrinder stuff.
    • Up x 5
  10. Tuco

    And this is why (meaningful) PVP is always instanced in all MMO games.

    sucks doesn't it.

    Devs since Ultima Online haven't been able to figure out how to create a exploit proof bounty system, and that's why most MMO's are PVP consensual only

    sucks doesn't it.
  11. Hartkernharald

    it's a 500vs500vs500 game. if the enemy decides to send a platoon to your location, ask your faction to send one too. the only change i'd like to see is removing the "reinforcements needed" spawns when you're in a squad/platoon.
  12. CNR4806

    • Up x 2
  13. Taemien

    You sat there defending for an hour and then got overwhelmed... sorry OP, but working as intended.

    Defending is a horrible decision. Once you fend off an attack you should Counterattack. If you sit in the base you cede the Initiative to the attacker. You are lucky you held out for an hour. Probably because the 'attackers' were elsewhere and you were merely fighting a token force to pin you in.

    Defenders will NEVER have an advantage. And its because the attackers have the initiative. They always get to choose where they spawn from, where they attack from, and can block you from other friendly areas.

    To prevent this sunderer spam. Fend off the attackers and then attack them at the source. The best way to defend a base is to flip an enemy base's control point. It makes it so they cannot take your base.
    • Up x 2
  14. RykerStruvian

    How to solve this? Pull a sunderer.

    Seriously though, all I do now is play engie and spam rep sundie. And I swap the guns as the situation calls for it.
  15. Klabauter8

    Of course there is... Imagine everyone in your team had this attitude... "Pff, who cares if I die? Makes no difference anyway..." Your whole team would lose ground en masse, immediately. That's what would happen.

    I fail to see the problem with this. If people couldn't respawn, then the battles would be over way too quickly and the illusion of grand battles would be destroyed. Perhaps a more punishing death would be cool if you actually could have servers with thousands of people, but that's sadly not the case yet.

    I'm sure many people would say the same when death would be actually really punishing. Especially when the maps are now already pretty empty often.
    Good tactics does not always help, especially if you are outnumbered. That's just how war goes. And these numerous Sunderers also easily could be a tactic in war. Perhaps it was just the enemy who had the better tactics in the end, and you failed to be prepared for them? Military often use such fake attacks to irritate the enemy. It's really unfair, but to me it sounds just like you dislike playing war games. And that death is not really punishing in this game is actually really fitting, since its a science fiction game, where people could already act like robots with absolute no fear of death.
  16. Tander09

    Oh look, spotted the idiot ps1 vet.

    It is the PERFECT time to put BFRs in, with all these sunderers spamming.
  17. axiom537

    So you had a stalemate, that went on and on for over and hour with neither side making any progress, then someone had a bright idea, lets use a different tactic and have 8 players spawn 8 sunderers and we will break this stalemate...

    Sounds like a good tactical move, that worked and the attackers out played you and defeated you...

    I do agree re-deployment is an issue, but one side bringing multiple vehicles to a fight to overwhelm the enemy is not an issue in my book, because there is nothing stopping you from doing the same thing to counter those vehicles. 8 liberators, 8 MBT's hell even 8 lightnings would have countered those sunderers. Redeploy however, is a different animal and it can not be countered.
    • Up x 5
  18. WarmasterRaptor

    He's right though. Even if you brand him as an idiot, he's right. What does that make you now? :rolleyes:

    BFRs are NOT desirable nor necessary at all.
    Mechwarrior is a game you should look into if you want mechs.
    • Up x 3
  19. axiom537

    Sounds like you want exactly the situation that the PS1 vet does not want to happen, based on his past experience with BFR's...Which is a BFR that can counter anything in the game, which means rather then having Sunderers spammed we will have BFR's spammed, just like in PS1, which FYI pretty much killed that game...
    • Up x 2
  20. Tuco

    it's a 500vs500vs500 game

    .
    .
    .
    .
    it's a 450vs450vs450 game
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    it's a 400vs400vs400 game
    ..
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    it's a 300vs300vs300 game
    .
    .
    .
    .
    c'mon PS1 players you know this song, sing along
    • Up x 3