Originally Posted by Mordelicius
People don't play this game for small, short battles. There are already a ton of multiplayer shooters for that.
|
Yes, which is why this game is dying like it is...
Originally Posted by Mordelicius
I only complain about the basics of the game. They can't pile on "meta gameplay" with broken basics that is supposed to be the foundation of this game. More vague nonsense from you? At least be specific. You can cuss all you want. You're only making a fool of yourself.  Cussing and vague generalizations will not materialize any good reasoning, ever. |
You were whining about everything bad about EMERALD, how EMERALD TR attacks EMERALD NC instead EMERALD VS.
You're entire stupid argument was how UNFAIR things were for YOU, as an EMERALD NC player, which just reeks of bias and poor sportsmanship...
Originally Posted by Mordelicius
So there's actually a reason to attack/defend bases rather than players just go on farm mode all the time.
|
Like I said BEFORE, most people just farm anyways, the old Resource System just gave them a good excuse to STOP when their shit started to get pushed in.
At least now they'll fight till the Continent is LOCKED, instead of jumping ship as soon as their particular Resource starts running low.
The REAL reason everything is farm or be farmed has NOTHING to do with Resources, it's the lack of a feeling of practical accomplishment; IE TERRITORY!
Territory in PS2 is currently MEANINGLESS, because no matter how hard you try, the same three way split is ALWAYS going to be reset, either through simple attrition or by a Continent Locking and Reopening.
So yes, assigning arbitrary strategic values to this meaningless Territory still leaves it WORTHLESS, because no one wants to fight and repeatedly die just so some other fuck can keep pulling tanks!
THEY WANT TO PUSH THE FRONTLINE!!!
Originally Posted by Mordelicius
Keep ignoring the fact that sunderers are easy to destroy. Any good Sundy spawner will park in a hidden spot rather than a closer spot that is fully exposed. I'm 100% sure you don't spawn sunderers. Or else you'd know this.
The problem here is, regarding distance, the No Deploy Zone forces players to either,
1) Park at a hidden, yet faraway spot and get farmed by defenders or
2) Park at close, yet exposed area right next to the NDZ and outrepair the dps on the sunderer.
Lastly, defenders can also spawn defensive Sunderer spawn. If defenders can do it, why can't attackers for the purpose of getting a secure spawn out of the firing lanes.
Without Sunderers, where do you spawn? Especially in a big fight? Galaxy? Beacons? That's not enough for most of the fights.
Magriders alone aren't balanced vs. Spawn. They hide, pop out, shoot burst damage, hide again. Imbalanced against static Sundies.
|
God damn, how fucking long has it been since you've actually played that you're saying SUNDERERS are EASY to kill?
A well parked Sunderer can easily last a half an hour in even the heaviest fighting, but idiots like yourself push far too far ahead and then are wondering why the hell the enemy was able to nuke you so easily...
If you are RIGHT OUTSIDE the Base and the Defenders start pushing back, GUESS WHAT?
YOU ARE THE FIRST TARGET THEY ARE GOING TO COME ACROSS!!!
A great example of this stupidity in action is Fort Drexler on Hossin.
It's No-deploy Zone is such that you actually CAN drive up to C Point and Deploy behind its building, but that's going to be the Primary Target for Defenders when they push out.
Without the No-Deploy Zone, its a simple matter of SPAMMING more Sunderers in the Base than the Defenders can destroy; very easily done when the Defenders own TANKS need to drive halfway around the Base to get there.
So yes, Sunderers CAN be destroyed, but since they are also something the Attackers can bring EN-MASSE they needed a No-deploy "Sphere of Influence" limitation.
Originally Posted by Mordelicius
Read the original post first. Capturing a point doesn't mean capturing the base. You only get that point out of the three, hence, the Base timer will not go down.
1) Attacker camps A. Captures A after X minutes.
2) Next, attacker camps B. Defenders are forced to counterattack A to recapture it for X minutes.
3) If attacker captures B too. Then the base timer will start going down. Defenders are then pressured to recapture A or B. And that's their fault for turtling. It's the best solution for the 3-point bases.
|
No, that is a terrible and stupid idea, because it would make what was already a tedious and prolonged fight EVEN FUCKING LONGER!!!
The Attacker on Point A could easily just be ONE very "talented" FPS player, who wouldn't have to do ANYTHING but keep running to Point A to make sure it was still flipped for his Faction.
AS LONG AS HE IS THERE, HIS FACTION IS HALFWAY FROM CAPTURING THE BASE!!!
You'd only need two such players to Capture any one Base, which would greatly over favor an already insufferable "elitist" playstyle.
Originally Posted by Mordelicius
"Discuss these thing". All you're doing so far is Diss and Cuss things. Last I checked, it's already on Live. or at least the bottom part of it.
|
Yes, it made it to Live because Test probably didn't provide enough play DATA to get it through their thick heads that this was a BAD idea.
Thankfully they only applied it to ONE Biolab, one that was already a headache to take to begin with, so hopefully the Live Data AND pissed off playerbase will be able to get how idiotic a change this was through the Devs' thick skulls...