PlanetSide Universe - View Single Post - Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)
View Single Post
Old 2014-11-13, 07:29 AM   [Ignore Me] #3
Mordelicius's Avatar
Re: Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)

Originally Posted by Whiteagle View Post
Mord, I'm sorry to have come back here to discuss the Biolab on test just to read this rant of your...
They don't have to read it. They don't have to listen to it. They are in complete control of this project from the get-go. When is the last time they even posted here for gameplay discussion? Reddit/Twitter epigrams get buried too quickly without any argument or rebuttals. Yet they still rely on circle-jerks without reasonings.

Redeployment isn't an issue, or even a problem!
Are the Matthershitters abusing the Waterson VS excellent vigilance to steamroll fights?
Yes, but that what SHOULD happen when one is able to put of a vigilant defense.
What makes the "MLG PRO" VS insufferable is that this is coupled with their rampant abuse of Cheese, making them a chore to actually fight against.
Luckily, the PPA nerf has scared most of these vultures off for now, but their kind will always plague us...
Redeployside kills the flow of fights. Players simply bounce all over the place and still not get sustained battles that keep players logged in.

In Emerald this problem is magnified since TR Emerald is deathly afraid of VS Emerald. This is particularly true during alerts. You would see 48-96+ TR "defending" this base from VS, while the adjacency is 1-12 . They don't want to go on an offensive. Where do they go? NC. That leaves VS to attack NC. VS Emerald themselves do not want to go full on against TR, know they are already broken, traumatised and demoralised.

Emerald VS leadership does this until they get to a chokepoint base like a Tower/Biolab or any 3-point cap base. Then they leave it be. Once it gets attacked, they mass redeploy halfway into capping to farm it. Rinse and repeat.

A week ago, DA was begging NC to attack from Waterson's Redemption to Bridgeward. They tried to steal WR and it got mass resecured by NC at the last minute. They don't want to assault a defensible base and rather redeploy somewhere else. This happened with a 40% pop Vanu continent lol. They know NC/TR will go on one of these big fights allowing them to just steal NC bases with at least 3:1 pop ratio.

I do agree with you on Continent Locking, it's a stupid mechanic that really only exist to force what little population that's playing onto the same map, and tying it to the Alert System doubly so.
Still, I seem to remember that it was guys like you clamoring for that sort of thing; For a Proof of Conquest that couldn't immediately be removed.
I never pressured SOE, in any of my post, to speed up the implementation of any Meta system of any sort. My approach of it is to take their time. I do constantly criticize them on the broken basics of the game, such as Sunderers, NDZ, faction balance etc.

Resource 2.0?
Honestly I'd rather the current meaningless system over the old one that punishes you for not being the domineering faction.
We need territory we can actually fight OVER instead of just across before Resource Management can be looked at properly, while we STILL don't have WORKING WARPGATES YET!!!
They ought to rollback the old system until they got a clear plan. Players are simply farming nowadays. Less and less players mind the capture points/bases.

Even at the most crude form, there used to be fights on who shall cap/uncap a continent or who gets to warpgate who. I remember fights where the enemy is down to their last continent-cap bases and most players are there to try to defend it. Players log-in just so they can take/defend bases.

Your personal beef with No-deploy Zones has always bugged me, the Defenders having a closer spawn to the Objective is suppose to be one of their inherent advantages, plus this helps spread out the fight density so it doesn't make the netcode go to shit.
My 'beef' with the NDZ doesn't come with no reason at all. NDZ is wrong on so many levels.

1) Devs interfering with gameplay that is not PvP but PvDevs. There's no way to counter it (at least add a NDZ generator).
2) There are 2000+ votes against it vs ~1000 votes for it in the Roadmap, last i've checked last year.
3) Makes fights much predictable.
4) Lastly, the only 'official' reason for it (posted here in this very forum last year) is the equalised linear proximity of defender/attackers.
Unfortunately, much of the variables on this equation make it anything but linear, straight forward balance problem. There are so many intangibles.
a) Attacker spawn can be destroyed. This alone makes equal-distance non-reciprocal.
b) Attacker spawn is vulnerable in all directions (360 degrees).
c) Attacker has to defend the Sunderers, leaving less players to the capture points.
d) Attacker spawn is vulnerable from air (Light Assaults, Liberators, ESF, Valkyrie)
e) Attacker spawn is vulnerable to suicidal charges. Tanks, Suicide harrasers with C4/Mine combos.

What does this tell me. It's not needed. Its logical foundation that you have to have equal distance from attacker/defense spawn is faulty at best. Look, they applied this same logic to the Biolab last year. Correct? They artificially lengthened walking distance of defensive spawn by placing it deep underground. Old thread about it: I pointed it out on the first two sentences. It was obvious, what they are trying to do.

It caused nothing but hilarity and headaches

Multi-point Captures are fine as they are; Attackers only require to hold a majority of the Points to eventually win.
Even if the Defenders only hold one Point and occasionally re-capture another, unless they can retake and hold the majority this only delays the inevitable.
The problem with this is Sunderers are very vulnerable. All the defenders have to do is take out all the Sunderers.

What i'm arguing is if attackers are sitting on point C for half an hour, that point should be theirs. The defenders gave it up. This will discourage defensive farmers from turtling. As it is, that C that has been in attacker control for 30 minutes can be reflipped in a couple seconds.

As for Ikanam Biolab, the only change I see that was an improvement was decoupling it's capture from the Satellite Bases.
I'm of the opinion that reliance on the Teleporters should be reduced, if not elimated all together, since in Biolabs they are just used as a shortcut to get around the fact that were designed without any way to access them from the ground.

Honestly I'm with Figment when it comes to Base Design; Most need EXTENSIVE OVERHAULS, and the Biolab is one of the biggest offenders being basically a Beta Base design of random Shacks sealed in a Dome, then raised off the ground so tanks can't get in.
They should do a playtest show how bad the new configuration is. That's what happened with their last attempt at Biolab renovation. Imo, Biolab changes should be gradual, if they are really bent on 'fixing' it. This is one of the most iconic structures in PS2.

The one problem they are obviously trying to remedy is how to get newbies from getting from the bottom to the top without depending on teleporters from other bases, jump pads, or tower jumpads if there are walls.

When I have a sunderer in a walled-biolab, I always put it next to the Tower jumppads. Because if you don't, newbies will be wandering all over the place.
Mordelicius is offline  
Reply With Quote