Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions) - Page 2 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Spam, the only meat that can be found on this site.
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2014-12-30, 12:43 PM   [Ignore Me] #16
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)


Originally Posted by ringring View Post
Yea I saw that pointman.

And you have people complaining that capturing a base means nothing because the next time you look it will have been captured right back..... well of course it means nothing and that's because it's too easy. You never value something if it comes too easily.
It's not just valueing something.

It's about being able to defend and protect your gains for a period of time.


"We" (group of PS1 vets everyone knows from the "whining") asked for this since alpha and early beta base designs: being able to tug-o-war a whole campaign from base to base, rather than steamroll back and forth. Being able to drive people off a continent, rather than just back to their continental spawnpoint.


Eh.
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2015-01-02, 10:39 PM   [Ignore Me] #17
bpostal
Contributor
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
It's not just valueing something.

It's about being able to defend and protect your gains for a period of time.


"We" (group of PS1 vets everyone knows from the "whining") asked for this since alpha and early beta base designs: being able to tug-o-war a whole campaign from base to base, rather than steamroll back and forth. Being able to drive people off a continent, rather than just back to their continental spawnpoint.


Eh.
But you must value the thing that you're fighting over. Otherwise, why else would we even bother fighting? SOE could reskin the guns into pot pipes, make them shoot smoke rings that look like flowers and we can all drop acid and play the worlds first MMO for Hippies!

We, as players, must value the bases and areas we're fighting over. They don't need to be the most important, or even be a defining moment in our Planetside memories, but they need to matter enough to fight over.

Bases lose that sense of value when they change hands so often. You say that one should be able to gain and defend that gain for a meaningful length of time. I agree. But you can't overlook what a sense of accomplishment, of value, that you gain when you can take and hold something. That sense of value is what people are missing and it's one of the reasons fighting in this game seems so meaningless.

Think of fighting on your Home Continent. For me, I held the territory on Solsar and Hossin (being TR in the later part of the game) in a much higher regard than Searhus, for example. Those two continents and the bases on them, hold a much higher value and I will fight harder for them.

You can never overlook the importance of value and sentiment or you can miss out on one of the driving factors for players.

Speaking of players, it's no wonder that with the relatively short amount of time it takes to flip an empty or mostly empty base that we've seen the rise of redeployside.
Since before Day 1 the most important thing you needed to do is act and react faster than the people on the other side. If a base is going to start flipping on the other side of the continent I'm going to take the fastest way there with the most firepower. Nowadays this means that a platoon can be almost anywhere within seconds. They will spawn in a protected area where they can pull MAXes and anything else they may need.
It's a good thing we've had two years to practice camping spawns.

The reason battleflow is poor is because the fastest and most economical way to move around the battlespace is to redeploy hop or juggle squad leads and defensive markers. The game needs to slow our ability to react by redeploying or they need to raise the stakes such that if you redeploy you're leaving yourself very vulnerable (i.e. A cap point is 'weakened' and thus caps in half the time if attacked again within 5 min).

Increasing the benefits for attacking the locally overpopulated population wouldn't hurt either. If the NC have 50% population, what reason do the VS and TR have to fight them other than that they have to?

That's my 2¢
__________________

Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast
bpostal is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2015-01-04, 08:22 PM   [Ignore Me] #18
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)


Originally Posted by bpostal View Post
Think of fighting on your Home Continent. For me, I held the territory on Solsar and Hossin (being TR in the later part of the game) in a much higher regard than Searhus, for example. Those two continents and the bases on them, hold a much higher value and I will fight harder for them.
Just for the record. Those are still on loan from NC. Braveheart wants his Solsar cottage back.
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2015-01-04, 08:58 PM   [Ignore Me] #19
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)


Regarding the rest of your post:

I warned for "spawn on squad leader"-zerg-squad leader swapping redeployside the moment they merely mentioned the ability to spawn "on top of another player in Alpha.

I mentioned logistical balance was at stake.









The thing is that logistics is everything in stalling. ANYONE who ever drained bases in PS1 should know EVERYTHING about the following logistics:

- Expected measure of response over time (size of enemy AND allied reinforcements)
- Likeliness of people showing up:
* Who is online?
* What are their push-buttons / fetishes?
* Are they preoccupied/tied-up/have higher priorities elsewhere?
* Who are their allies and will they call them in?
* How many people can I call in that might / will respond and when and how long will it take them from the moment they are convinced to show up to actually show up? ie. recall / redeploy by sanc: spawn, get vehicle, drive / fly to warpgate / load ANT / Load up ANT / fly over.
* When will they call them in / can I call in my reinforcements?
* When is my carrot big enough for my allies? (Hi Mercs, remember those midnight calls asking if you could be convinced to hold a base I just started/was in the process of / finished draining/energizing/holding for 8 minutes and constant status checks?)
* What's the NTU level on the base?
* What's the strategic value of the base?
* How far is it for the frontliners to get there?
* Would the lazy enemy go for it?
* What benefits / units does the base provide if taken?
* How few people would you need at minimum to hold it against a late response?
* How long could it be held against worse odds?
* Will it attract killwhores to extend the fight?
* Will it piss off the enemy right now making your empire a target next?
* Is it in line of sight of people watching the map closely for the current fight or just for the defense watch?
* Is it the empire I wish to hit right now or would it hurt my empire in the long run because of the likely next target of the NC / VS / TR zerg?
* How far is the base from the nearest warpgate / base certain people bind to for homecont defense?
* Has it been attacked recently?
* What level of hacking do they have and what is their resecuring speed?
* Should I engage the resecuring troops now and risk a resec or reset the resec a little later so by the time he gets back he lost just those 20s extra?
* Where would the ANT come from?
* How much time would it take the ANT to get here and thus would they have to use a Gal / Lodestar or send a loner?
* Are their chokepoints on the likely route their ANT would take?
* When would that ANT arrive and through which gate / passes under which bridge in base / uses a Lodestar?
* Should I save my OS for the ANT?
* Should I use a Router / AMS or should I rely on an AMS / backup AMS + Router or can I do with just the AMS?
* Can I place it somewhere that is both close enough to defend the CC/spawns/gen despite the run to it, but inconspicuous enough to not be noticed by
* Can I use decoys / stalling CE to keep enemies from reaching inside quickly?
* Should I bring the ANT myself or will allies/enemies bring it for me?
* How long would that take?
* If the base drains, where do I get my supplies?
* Should one of my allies carry supplies for me in his AI MAX that guards the CC?

And I could go on about this list of questions. Logistics. Was. Everything. And believe me when I say I could usualy estimate how quick a response would be.



You could easily tell if people who drained were amateurs or pros.

Some outfits would not use subtlety for one, they would just volume spam hacks and drains to make at least something go through, somewhere (usualy by focusing on one). An overwhelming tactic that also tries to strain the enemy logistics by having them disperse their forces all over the place, wasting time getting to the one that mattered or by keeping people preoccupied long enough at one that looked like it mattered, get one somewhere else by failure of the enemy showing up to resecure in time at all.




But yeah, the point is, I hear you BPostal. But it's not JUST about sentimental value. It's about strategic value, attractivity to fight in (as defender against the odds), worthiness of getting there (the people - allies you ask or enemies you incite - to come will wonder if it is a waste of time: will the fight be over by the time they arrive? Can they arrive in time to stop/win/stall/get something out of it?

It's a matter of cost vs gain.


Pride is secondary. It's there. But it's not a biggy. Pride only works on targets you or the enemy have a long term claim on and is hardly ever within reach. So yeah, as you say that can be a lure and draw, pulling something off that is hard to do. But most people go for realistic things and even more people underestimate what is realistic to the point they don't even try because it looks "too hard/impossible to do".


And I know what's impossible. I also know all my opponents are flawed human beings. Even if they are 30 Blood Legion with 12 MAXes surrounding a CC: they always assume someone else has Dark Light on. They always assume no infil would wait for their buddies to open the door to not set off alarms or trigger a Dark Light sweep, because hey, this ally of them was bringing cookies and checking the CC right? No way he could be an unwitting trojan horse.

Logistics. If all doors are sealed shut: use the front door and get yourself an escort.
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2015-01-05, 04:18 AM   [Ignore Me] #20
ringring
Contributor
General
 
Re: Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)


Oh dear, Blood Legion.

They were good guys but that episode cannot be forgotten.
__________________
ringring is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2015-01-06, 07:54 AM   [Ignore Me] #21
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)


What do you mean, using a singular format, "that ONE episode"?


As if that only happened once. ¬__¬'
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2015-01-06, 08:54 AM   [Ignore Me] #22
ringring
Contributor
General
 
Re: Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
What do you mean, using a singular format, "that ONE episode"?


As if that only happened once. ¬__¬'
If it had happened one in PS2 I'd say "that many"!
__________________
ringring is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2015-01-06, 09:19 PM   [Ignore Me] #23
bpostal
Contributor
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
Regarding the rest of your post:

I warned for "spawn on squad leader"-zerg-squad leader swapping redeployside the moment they merely mentioned the ability to spawn "on top of another player in Alpha.

I mentioned logistical balance was at stake.









The thing is that logistics is everything in stalling. ANYONE who ever drained bases in PS1 should know EVERYTHING about the following logistics:

- Expected measure of response over time (size of enemy AND allied reinforcements)
- Likeliness of people showing up:
* Who is online?
* What are their push-buttons / fetishes?
* Are they preoccupied/tied-up/have higher priorities elsewhere?
* Who are their allies and will they call them in?
* How many people can I call in that might / will respond and when and how long will it take them from the moment they are convinced to show up to actually show up? ie. recall / redeploy by sanc: spawn, get vehicle, drive / fly to warpgate / load ANT / Load up ANT / fly over.
* When will they call them in / can I call in my reinforcements?
* When is my carrot big enough for my allies? (Hi Mercs, remember those midnight calls asking if you could be convinced to hold a base I just started/was in the process of / finished draining/energizing/holding for 8 minutes and constant status checks?)
* What's the NTU level on the base?
* What's the strategic value of the base?
* How far is it for the frontliners to get there?
* Would the lazy enemy go for it?
* What benefits / units does the base provide if taken?
* How few people would you need at minimum to hold it against a late response?
* How long could it be held against worse odds?
* Will it attract killwhores to extend the fight?
* Will it piss off the enemy right now making your empire a target next?
* Is it in line of sight of people watching the map closely for the current fight or just for the defense watch?
* Is it the empire I wish to hit right now or would it hurt my empire in the long run because of the likely next target of the NC / VS / TR zerg?
* How far is the base from the nearest warpgate / base certain people bind to for homecont defense?
* Has it been attacked recently?
* What level of hacking do they have and what is their resecuring speed?
* Should I engage the resecuring troops now and risk a resec or reset the resec a little later so by the time he gets back he lost just those 20s extra?
* Where would the ANT come from?
* How much time would it take the ANT to get here and thus would they have to use a Gal / Lodestar or send a loner?
* Are their chokepoints on the likely route their ANT would take?
* When would that ANT arrive and through which gate / passes under which bridge in base / uses a Lodestar?
* Should I save my OS for the ANT?
* Should I use a Router / AMS or should I rely on an AMS / backup AMS + Router or can I do with just the AMS?
* Can I place it somewhere that is both close enough to defend the CC/spawns/gen despite the run to it, but inconspicuous enough to not be noticed by
* Can I use decoys / stalling CE to keep enemies from reaching inside quickly?
* Should I bring the ANT myself or will allies/enemies bring it for me?
* How long would that take?
* If the base drains, where do I get my supplies?
* Should one of my allies carry supplies for me in his AI MAX that guards the CC?

And I could go on about this list of questions. Logistics. Was. Everything. And believe me when I say I could usualy estimate how quick a response would be.



You could easily tell if people who drained were amateurs or pros.

Some outfits would not use subtlety for one, they would just volume spam hacks and drains to make at least something go through, somewhere (usualy by focusing on one). An overwhelming tactic that also tries to strain the enemy logistics by having them disperse their forces all over the place, wasting time getting to the one that mattered or by keeping people preoccupied long enough at one that looked like it mattered, get one somewhere else by failure of the enemy showing up to resecure in time at all.




But yeah, the point is, I hear you BPostal. But it's not JUST about sentimental value. It's about strategic value, attractivity to fight in (as defender against the odds), worthiness of getting there (the people - allies you ask or enemies you incite - to come will wonder if it is a waste of time: will the fight be over by the time they arrive? Can they arrive in time to stop/win/stall/get something out of it?

It's a matter of cost vs gain.


Pride is secondary. It's there. But it's not a biggy. Pride only works on targets you or the enemy have a long term claim on and is hardly ever within reach. So yeah, as you say that can be a lure and draw, pulling something off that is hard to do. But most people go for realistic things and even more people underestimate what is realistic to the point they don't even try because it looks "too hard/impossible to do".


And I know what's impossible. I also know all my opponents are flawed human beings. Even if they are 30 Blood Legion with 12 MAXes surrounding a CC: they always assume someone else has Dark Light on. They always assume no infil would wait for their buddies to open the door to not set off alarms or trigger a Dark Light sweep, because hey, this ally of them was bringing cookies and checking the CC right? No way he could be an unwitting trojan horse.

Logistics. If all doors are sealed shut: use the front door and get yourself an escort.
I've put a portion in bold that I think is really the key element to logistics in PS2. Proper, well thought out logistics is oftentimes slower and much more vulnerable than simply hopping around using redeploy. That imbalance is what I view as the real failing. It's that lack of a real need for logistics beyond a couple token AMSes. Why bother with the whole combined arms bit when it's faster, easier and safer to redeploy a platoon into a spawnroom and MAX up?

As to the value of a given base, you're absolutely right. We can create value for a given base through it's strategic weight. A base's positioning on the continent, it's place in the lattice and of course its defensibility all play a key part in creating that strategic value. I've always held the belief that we can create the sentimental value by upholding the strategic value of a base.

I'll always have fond memories of fighting over places like SpecOps training camp and The Crown (worthless strategically, invaluable tactically). They were centers of epic, drawn out fighting. You can't get that same kinda of feeling (and thus you can't get the same kind of intensity) fighting over something like NS Material Storage when you can just steamroll the entire thing.
Outposts that have a fast time to cap are oftentimes not even worth defending if the attackers have already used their initiative to completely overwhelm an area. By the time an organized defense can be mustered the base is halfway capped and the spawns are camped. What's the point in bothering then? Oftentimes I've found that my squad (haven't had enough members for a proper platoon outside of events in ~1 year) can have a much more enjoyable time fucking about than playing for the objective. And after Two years, I just can't justify playing for a larger objective with no benefit other than "Fuck those guys".
__________________

Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast
bpostal is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2015-01-20, 03:03 AM   [Ignore Me] #24
Mordelicius
Captain
 
Mordelicius's Avatar
 
Re: Flaws of current PS2 Battleflow (Suggestions)


Any good, basic gameplay would be a sufficient starter but their approach and logic is just backwards.

Current PS2 Developers' logic:
1) Monetize Guns/Gears.
2) Build a "Directives System" to support it.
3) Remove the old resource system to support the Directive System (allow players to chain-pull anything).
4) Players will use/buy more guns/gears
5) Players will use the guns/gears to kill each other = Gameplay (PS2 Dev) = Farming (Actual players).

Now you see it's completely backwards, instead of:
1) Provide good basic gameplay, balance, flow etc.
2) Players stick around.
3) Player try different guns/gears for different gameplay/situations which feed into the "Directives Sytem".
4) Monetize Guns/Gears.

As it is, that's how they think. They see PvP as just grinding more guns by farming each other out . Players aren't going to stick around just to farm guns. This not PvE . PvP is different. Casual PvPers aint' gonna farm guns either . They will be the first to leave under this system.

Thus, they killed out the old resource sytem because it's going to hinder the new Directive System progression. Right? Anyone trying to grind their Max or ESF or MBT directive need the chain-pull ability to progress it.

They destroyed the basic foundation of the resource mechanic so they can satisfy that backward logic.

And what did they replace it with? Literally nothing.
Mordelicius is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.