PlanetSide Universe - View Single Post - Gameplay: Outfit Air Cruisers Redux
Thread: Gameplay: Outfit Air Cruisers Redux
View Single Post
Old 2014-05-23, 05:43 AM   [Ignore Me] #306
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Outfit Air Cruisers Redux


Originally Posted by Baneblade View Post
More power to the defenders.
You mean, imba-fight by adding more and more diverse threats.

I thought you were more intelligent than that. Do the same thing they did to AMSunderers.
Which was utterly shit.

Why do they need to? What fantastical scenario are you imagining is going to happen?
You either never played the game or you're in a zergfit.

How is it overpowering? A single liberator is more overpowering.
Libs in PS2 are OP. So you need something else that's OP as well and defend it by saying there's something worse out there?

An airborne spawnpoint of any kind that cannot be handled without specialised equipment is simply OP.

It has ten years of thought out behind it, but I'll address your 'concerns'.
No it doesn't. You developing something for PS1 doesn't mean it fits PS2 or can be ported directly. And since it already didn't fit PS1 (don't kid yourself, it fit PS1 as much as the Galaxy Gunship did: not at all), it's even less likely to fit PS2.

You haven't paid attention.
There's no role assigned where one was missing. You just force it in because you like the idea of floating fortresses. That isn't "vision". You haven't defined how it would fit in. You haven't defined how all other forms of units would interact with it. All you have done is created this platform to do something with aircraft, while the rest of the units kinda... look up and maybe pot shot at it, but don't really interact with it at all, aside from being targeted by the units that come out of it.

Because it is there it MUST be destroyed, right? Have you even read the idea? Ground forces can engage OACs, but OACs cannot directly engage them. It is entirely one sided.
I don't think you understand your own idea. Indirect engagement is just as much a form of engagement. You haven't at all thought of combinations of units.

Or you could bring the appropriate tool for the job. It isn't like the damn thing will be doing anything to you, except spawning shit for you to kill.
You mean spawning shit that will camp you so you can't do shit to it.

[quote]Yes, I have. My current solution to that potential problem is that each empire will have a population cap. Granted we have zero basis for such an idea and no idea if it will truly work, I'm voyaging into the unknown here.



That would be something most of us generally refer to as tactics. I'm against Galaxy spawn points in any case.
As am I, but you haven't stated this as a condition.



I appreciate the feedback, thought I'm surprised at how little you know of the idea. It isn't new, I've been evolving it since 2004.
I've been shooting it down for just as long since PlanetSide cannot work with units that are balanced around large groups of people without being balanced around small groups of people as well.

Why do you think a Galaxy Gunship is operated by two people most the time and not a full complement of troops? Why should a GG be allowed to exist to engage small groups that are a natural occurance in game, if it is designed to fight large groups?

Why should it be an "I-win" in certain situations that regularly occur?

You'll come across plenty of players without proper AA capacity. You simply don't add stupendous Aircraft ideas.

In my opinion, you just don't want to see PlanetSide have a naval aspect that actually matters for those of us who favor that playstyle over all others.
This isn't naval warfare. This is pure air warfare.


I welcomed naval warfare, but naval warfare is something water surface based that competes with Magriders, Thunderers, Raiders and Deliverers, etc. but is bound to water or land. Something that is airborne should be relatively weak, since something water or land based is fastly more vulnerable and limited by terrain. The strongest you should have in the air is a troop transport that can be taken out by a mere couple of fighters.

You don't at all consider a lot of other things. You don't think of how hard it already is to deal with a couple threats of various kinds to break out of a siege, even with the distances between bases involved. You provide a really simply way of bringing in more air power to a situation where air domination (once occured) is already hard to break, especially from the ground up.

It's stupid to worsen that situation.


I don't see any reason why you should break logistics like this and overpower existing air dominance more.


If you had vision, you would understand that you would need to offer any player competitive playing power in any situation and not confront them with units they could never manage to take out in groups of more than three players (meaning one player working hard could accomplish it too). You set way too high standards for group organisation than you can expect from randoms. And that is your main design problem. You can't change players to be as you want them to be and you can't blame players for not being that way. You have to design around your average FPS gamer and the natural groups they form when entering the game. Otherwise you only leave room for super-organised and zergfit groups and then you kill the game.

Last edited by Figment; 2014-05-23 at 05:51 AM.
Figment is offline