PlanetSide Universe - View Single Post - Cont Lock finally?
View Single Post
Old 2014-06-09, 06:33 AM   [Ignore Me] #81
Lieutenant General
Re: Cont Lock finally?

Originally Posted by Mordelicius View Post
Their only official argument is the attacker spawn should be equidistant to the defender spawn with regards to the capture point. That falls flat in two logical areas:

- Attacker Sundy spawn is destructible and defender Spawn room is not (false equivalency).
- Defenders can drop a sundy spawn in a capture point while Attackers cannot (reciprocity).
Both your logic and SOE's logic is flawed.

The distance the defenders and attackers have to bridge should be proportional to the strength and capacity of either side. Since the attackers have the initiative, usualy have the firepower and the numbers, the distance and rather, the area, the defenders can realistically cover is much shorter. In fact, the attackers just need a breach, while the defenders need control.

The problem is that both you and SOE look at these groups as being equals. They are not. One of the groups bring combined arms to lock down a base, the other has nothing but infantry and maybe a few vehicles (that die within seconds).

The defenders have been parking Sundies next to the Capture point for about a year now since the NDZ. The very fact that the Developers don't find that imbalanced, is further proof that the attacker NDZ is moot and should be removed asap, or at the very least for the sake of testing/compromise, limit it to 10-20 feet and see if makes any difference at all. If not, simply remove it all.
This is a non-sequitor. Yes, the defenders have been parking them there, but the need for defenders is also greater. Your main complaint is that defenders can do something attackers can't. In a way you're right, but NOT in the way you think: neither side should be able to park it right at the CC! Why? Because the CC shouldn't actually be that close to the outside environment. It is simply too easy to dominate with vehicles.

But what I don't get is that you complain about Sunderers being able to get there, while it is far more problematic that Liberators and tanks can control the paths to the CC and lock it down.

If you think you have a better mechanic, that's good. Make a new thread and perhaps the Developers will read or respond to it. But, I'm not arguing for perfection. I'm arguing for the developer "hands off" or "hands on" philosophy. I'm saying, in the current PS2 live build, the generator mechanic is the best example of a "hands off" approach where players interaction result in gameplay.

If I were to touch a generator to overload it. The enemy side has to shoot me or mine the area to stop it. If they want to fix the generator, I have to stop them as well.

The NDZ simply stops player from parking Sunderers. There's no player interaction or gameplay. That's the point I was trying to make. Their "hands on" approach is hurting PS2. They are simply not mindful of the implications.
Whether it's hands on or off doesn't matter. What matters is whether the assignment they give to players is feasible for both sides. Both sides (attack and defense) MUST be able to perform these interactions.

It is for instance quite clear to me they didn't really know how to relate base size to defender numbers. The initial base size has been kept, despite tasking defenders with covering far too many approach routes, thanks primarily to the mere addition of a jetpack.

They designed bases and mechanics, assuming players could cover these things, without realising the amount of coordination and logistics required to do perform these tasks. The amount of defenders required to cover everything is simply too large and these populations are not available. Nor did they seem to have looked at the scenarios of what kind of strategies players would employ to win.

Given the designs and mechanics, camping the defenders was sometimes not only the easiest, but sometimes the only feasible way to win.

One of the problems with these base designs is the linear thought put into it, where oftentimes it is assumed attackers and defenders both start at point X and Y directly opposite to one another and will fight an equidistant distance to control points A, B and C. And maybe D, E and F. In reality, the vectors of attack vary constantly, while the vector of defense do not. Yet the bases were designed around defense against a single vector of assault and required concentrated defense to even hold that.

The same problem exists for counters. Counter-type warfare shouldn't require more numbers than the amount of units attacking. This goes in particular for air cover. It is far too easy to kill AA MAXes as a Liberator crew, to the point that I once killed 9 in two runs, while they never got us down to 20% health, simply because they had too many threats to deal with (both airborne and on the ground). They were dedicated to fight us, yet were made so much weaker than us it would take m a minute to kill us, while we could target ANYTHING on the ground and could kill in one shot or at most a few seconds.

They simply don't understand that dedicated platforms should be extremely strong because you can't afford to have many dedicated platforms in a combined arms game due to the sheer variety of targets while you can only use them against a narrow section of enemies, while jacks of all trades should be weak as you can afford to have many of these and can always use these in any given situation.

Too many players argue from a sense of entitlement, or worse, something I will call "convenient realism hypocrisy" (i.e. they argue something has to be "realistic" the moment it suits them, while they ignore this realism argument for everything else irrealistic that they're fine with). The only thing that matters is game balance, function and that it should result in a competitive environment where everyone stands a chance to perform the job they're assigned to do (ie. what the game mechanics and missions ask of them to create a "win", i.e. win at attack or defense, regardless of population).
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote