Huge Outfits and PlanetSide 2

[Tatwi]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

I don't think anyone wants to restrict large outfits, only gain more opportunity for small outfits to participate.

I would like to limit large outfits from using the "everyone suicide and..." device. Malorn really sung up the praises of The Enclave, but this is their primary tactic, which is both lame in general (death traveling) and far too effective of a power multiplier. I loathed taking part in it, because it felt spastic, abusive, and flat out boring (win win win and maybe have someone to shoot at with 50 other people shooting at them too...), but the tactic worked so who was I to say anything. The trouble is, it works for all large groups at the expense of the game.

The trouble isn't the large groups, but how they use the game to achieve the easiest route to "victory", ie. Death travel, vehicle spam, and superior numbers rather than superior skill.

The stuff in this thread is why I don't play - the game is boring in a zergfit and boring not in one, so why bother doing more than logging in to shoot stuff and blow stuff when the mood strikes? Fix these issues (and the performance issues, as beta played smoother...) and PS2 will be worth playing. Right now there's just no point nor any variety to the game.

[DirkSmacker]

Large outfits will have issues if/when they start having outfit leaderboards.

When it happens, the game needs alliance level organizations to allow for outfits with different play styles to easily form up when they have to.

[TheFirstOmen]

To answer the original question of the thread: No. Larger outfits do not hurt the game.

If a large outfit exists, it is because players enjoy being a part of something greater than themselves and that outfit is clearly doing something right to be recruiting so many people.

That being said, I'd like to address something that has been mentioned before but I would like to reiterate again on this thread:

Planetside 2 tactics are a joke. There I said it. Planetside 2 tactics are 110% a complete and utter piece of crap. In a larger outfit, I can tell you those leaders always send air, armor and infantry together or rolling close together.

Does this make them a zerg rush? It's debatable. I've heard both sides of the argument so many times I can tell you it largely depends on the situation. When you've got 1 infantry platoon with an armor platoon and air squads all on small outpost, I'd call that a zerg rush. However, because some of the outfits are more organized, they can redeploy in a pinch to attack an enemy force of equal-greater numbers.

However, the point still remains that the sure, guaranteed 100% fool proof way to win is overwhelming numbers. There's simply no counter to numbers and I do not believe that should EVER be any counter to being over-run with enemies. What there needs to be is more secondary objectives, as mentioned before, for smaller outfits or squads. I'm not exactly sure how these secondary objectives play into the overall meta-game, but it's something that is desperately needed in the game right now.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

Feedback! We love feedback! Thank you for posting!

Indeed, give us more, I HAVE COOKIES!!!

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

#1: I've never been a fan of resources being the driving motive for a fight. They're a long acting metagame mechanic that, rather than changing the terrain of the fight, affects a side's morale as they can no longer defend against one type of attack. (Re: Higby's comments on Air being the game's AA, remove a side's aircraft resource and you can't be countered.) Give them a different role, time is enough of a resource cost for vehicles as is (respawn timers = time as a cost that's paid after pulling).

Yeah, it is one of the reasons why I was rather uncertain about removing Auraxium as an in-game currency to be honest...

The taking and denial of Resources should have been a major component of Continental Strategic planning, but right now Resource Income is just another measuring stick for how well your Faction is doing on a particular Continent.

Your average player doesn't care about them outside of how much of a particular Resource they need, just their characters personal advancement...

Since the fastest way to advance characters is through Certification Points earned through Experience and the fastest way to gain Experience Points is with Base Captures, it's no wonder people rush to capture a Continent only to immediately abandon it.

...Perhaps Auraxium should make a comeback, not as a set Resource but as as an In-game Currency rewarded overall for how well your faction is doing?

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

#2: I'm a fan of a slower game but that's because it opens up space for socializing between squadmates but I know that speed has been a theme for PS2 so probably not. If your goal is to allow for response time then the best option is to reduce the paths that the attackers can take allowing defenders to wall themselves up at a choke point using the capture time of the territories between the two forces to buy them time to prepare.

#4: As Higby has said in the past that the problem with cost increase is that some people only want to do one thing and that thing requires a vehicle. If you're only interested in tanking then you're really being hurt by increased tank prices. I'd argue that the vehicle issue can't be solved through just "There are too many vehicles!" thinking. Making them more expensive won't reduce vehicles in a way that makes the game better. The two things in my mind that are up with vehicles are that 1: Vehicles are much more fun and 2: Vehicles are force multipliers with no effective downside.
Don't make vehicles less fun, just make them less utilitarian. (talking about base openness here) There is only one place where infantry are more important than vehicles and that's inside a biolab.
If you want some examples on this, check out how many people have bought the other AA arm vs an AI or AV arm for the MAX. Sounds weird I know but stick with my logic. If infantry fights were common and the opportunity for them was often then you'd see a large number of AI arm sales. The number of times AV MAX arms are useful I can count on one hand and that single finger stands for when there's a tank right outside the spawn. AA arms will probably be far outselling the other two because MAXs are responsible for keeping the rest of the infantry safe from the vehicle that can most easily spawn camp them. Though it might also tell you that there's not much quality AA in the game.

Again, I think both of these are an issue of defensibility...

You can't slow down because there are few places you can actually entrench without getting steamrolled by a Vehicle rush.

Those few places you CAN dig in (Jaeger's Crossing, Scarred Mesa Skydock, The... Crown, Raven's Landing) provide EPIC fights, probably specifically because the long fights force groups of strangers to form a Brotherhood in Arms!

The rest suffer from poor spawn design and base layout.

Take what should be an Epic base to fight at, Auraxis Firearm's Corp on Amerish.
It's very clear that the majority of an attacking force is suppose to be funnelled into the bottleneck that is the bridge, ground vehicles duking it out while Infantry try to creep their way up, until finally they've made their way to the Courtyard of the Base to cut off the Spawn off from the Control Point.
Aerial control, mostly provided by Raven's Landing, would help by allowing one side to suppress the Vehicle flow of the other...

...The problem is, the cookie-cutter spawn building is SO exposed that Air-to-Ground can easily keep it suppress on its own and Raven's Landing just doesn't have enough Anti-Air turrets to deter an Air-Rush!

You end up not even needing a Ground fight, just one guy to land and cap the point.

To fix this, Raven's Landing should get more AA Phalanxes (to greater its importance in Capturing Auraxis Firearm's Corp), Auraxis Firearm's Corp should probably get one or two itself (just to provide some innate means of air denial), and there needs to be MORE OVER HEAD COVER, particularly leading out of the Spawn to the Vehicle Terminal and subsequently the Control Point (It also needs a large number of Spear Phalanxes, particularly at each end of the bridge, but at least one on each corner of the plateau to deter Light Assault AMS Sunderer Rushes).

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

#5: The deployment options trimming was something that I was honestly expecting to happen every day I was playing in beta. Heck, if you really want to play around with it and add some possible meta-ES have the NC be able to spawn at the nearest Sundy, the TR the nearest 2, and the VS the nearest 3. Then of course you would have the NC be able to spawn at the nearest 3 bases, the TR the 2 nearest, and the VS just at the closest. Squad beacons and home bases/AMS would be exempt from these limits.

Personally I've never been a fan of limiting spawn availability, but that's because it's a pain in the ass to need to mount up every time you go to re-enforce a defense on the other side of the Continent...

...Still, that is a rather interesting idea for asymmetrical balance.

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

Not all territories need be equal. Nor do all hexs need to give the owning empire the ability to hack adjacent hexs. Try breaking up Indar to take advantage of the landscape and make solid lines of conflict rather than amorphous lines of scrimmage. This would make points that act as gateways so that some regions become high priority and thus tempting targets for lightning raids and harrowing defenses. Obviously these areas would be built up with an eye for defense.

Well I do know that Adjacency is some times a huge pain in the ass, especially in Northern Indar where tiny Outpost control HUGE Territories and where all you need to make a move on Dahaka Amp Station is take Indar Comm Array or Seabed Listening Post...

...You don't know how happy I was to see Howling Pass Checkpoint be put in or Quartz Ridge be made into a serviceable base.

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

Robo has some great stuff in his post, I disagree with #6 as such an event would cause players to constantly chase it rather than getting swept up in a large organic fight. Remember, not everyone liked Rabbit ball events (I met some who actively hated them). Rabbit ball did have its place but it would have been best if done on a once a week basis on the secondary. #7 should be done with tunnels, claustrophobia and confined firefights can bring back some of that old, pushing through a base from a backdoor feeling of having multiple paths to a goal where every bit of cover could hide an enemy. Totally agree with numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8. Though I'd add in that LLU doesn't have to be the only way to cap a base and there really should be a thread for ideas on how bases could be captured. I have some issues with #3 as while the benefit was the reason for going behind lines to cut supplies, gens were always a target during any fight and were protected as such. The open nature of PS2 architecture prevents this as anything not in the core of the base is indefensible. The devs have seen this and the way it's being dealt with is putting the gen either inside the core of the base or putting the shield generator that protects it in the core. But there's also another reason for gen demolition...

Well I unfortunately never experienced the Original Planetside, so I can't honestly use it as a reference point...

Most of my insight comes from the Second Life Military Community... so I have WAY more patience when it comes to fixing things like bad spawns, since its still miles above "Black-screening."

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

Suspicious Activity, if anyone on this forum knows that name I'll be surprised. It was a small ephemeral outfit created way back in PS1's past. It was built with the idea of speed, skill, and resource denial. The members would work in groups of 2 piloting mossies between bases and hacking out fresh gear while running. The goal was to see how fast you could destroy the spawn room and gen in a base and then get back out. The results were impressive. The live fire exercise I saw ended a large fight by destroying half of Cyssor's bases in a short enough time that the NC couldn't respond. There's more to the story but any more risks being sentimental.

Ok, that's just sounds awesome!
This is exactly the time of thing I'd want Mobile Infantry Raven Squads to be able to do.

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

Spawn point denial is something that is currently ruled over by a single thing, the spawn generator. Having 2 points of weakness in the direct destruction of the tubes should be legitimate. After all, spawn camping doesn't happen if the tubes can't spawn anyone. Also, tower/territory spawnrooms shouldn't be involatile sanctuaries who's only remedy is conquest.

Well remember I'm from Second Life Combat scene, where spawn camping wasn't just a Tactic but the ENDGOLD of a base assault (Hence "Black-Screening," killing an enemy as they spawn so often that they can't leave the loading screen and eventually just quit the game)!

Perhaps instead of a Spawn Control Unit at major Facilities, there should be a Spawn Room Shield Generator that protects PS1 style Hackable/Destroyable Spawn Tubes...

...The current Satellite Points could then have self-contained Units base on the current one room Spawn Shacks, that could be hacked/disabled from a point on the side.

Of course, I think Outpost should keep the current system of only flipping with control of the base, as I have an interim solution to help base defensibility:

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

As such, I feel we should probably focus on more immediate means of strengthening bases...

...Namely, replacing those deathtrap sardine cans that are small spawn buildings!

Let's face it, they are probably the worst offenders when it comes to camping, offering no real protection against enemy forces while simultaneously being more of a hindrance to defense then an asset.

A couple of days ago, an idea thread on "fortifications" got me thinking about Platoon Leaders having access to deployable Spawn Buildings...

Now the viability of such a concept is debatable, but it did lead me to a small spawn building design that would be a VAST improvement over the current boxes.

It would be a mushroom-shaped structure, a squat tower from which the base can be defended from.

The trunk of the building itself has no entrances, just a set of two spawn tubes, equipment terminals, and a shielded elevator for going to and from the second floor.
The second floor itself would be an octangular arrangement of bastions and machicolations, roofed in such a way that only the outermost lips of the bastions would be open to overhead bombardment.
This would allow the spawn building itself to be used as a defensive hard-point as well as providing defenders four potential sheltered exits down through the machicolations...

...The only downside is that Light Assaults will be the only ones able to get back INTO the spawn after dropping, but this could be partially alleviated by external equipment terminals...

Thoughts?

...I call it the Alamo Mushroom.

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

And I seem to have made a giant post again. I should stop doing that.

You and me both brother...

...I now have to compile three different responses like this in the time its taken me to write ONE!

...AND the first two are too big to put in one post!

*Continue.*

[Whiteagle]

*Continued and individually posted for the sake of space.*

Sorry if I hacked up your post for concisely Stanis...

Originally Posted by Stanis

In a later post you mention the presence of enemy vehicles in PS1 courtyards. True, the were camped. However this had far less influence on the subsequent infantry combat. With the exception of the Bio Lab gen on the roof - which was a key small outfit target for attack or defence - key infantry actions inside remained mostly unaffected by vehicles.
Defence multiplers or defender advantage aside - PS2 should never have allowed vehicle/combined arms into virtually all areas of every major base.

Hell, the Major Facilities are probably the BEST when it comes to segregating Infantry and Vehicles!

Most Outpost, particularly on Indar and Esamir, seem to be designed with the idea that the most they'd ever see is a Tank or two and maybe a passing Aircraft...
...Not an entire fucking army rolling up for free XP!

Originally Posted by Stanis

Mostly I'd like to shoot whoever designed the bases.
Walls. Have merlons on the outer-edge only. This providers cover to the defenders. It means the attackers that reach the walls are in line of sight to the defenders.
Walls. For a benefit merlon gaps should have shields infantry can fire through. You have to take the walls the hard way - or the shield gen in the linked hex.

Courtyard. More of a barbican. Should be open. With foxholes. Emplacements. For the defenders to shoot and scoot.

Base. Infantry only. Spawns. Generators. They go in here. Line of Sight, Angle of Elevation. Shields. Walls. ROOF! They prevent HE rounds and carpet bombs. Part of most bases should resemble a biolab.

Yeah, who was the genius who thought a bunch of randomly strung about aluminium shacks that don't even give off the impression of a shanty town would make GREAT Strategic First-person Shooter maps?

I think they should go and try to start their own army in Second Life, then when they inevitably fail go and join the Merczateers to see how a base SHOULD be build...

...Believe me, Anthony be itching to rebuild the damn thing sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Stanis

Give the timers and terrain as tactical limits on vehicles and resource expenditure what we are missing is strategic limits.
Resources should effect vehicle costs in the same way NTU drain did in PS1. We must be able to cut off the accumulation of resources - irrespective of the fact that 80% of the map is <color>.
Most hexes have little actual purpose if they don't contain a base. Those outposts and towers provide fairly generic facilities.
They should have comms towers, shield arrays, listening posts, observation points.
Every facility should have a benefit or pass-it-on.

If we knock out the comms array two hexes away from the warpgate - resources arent getting handed out. no intel is provided on the map.
The shield generator array next to the amp station should be a "capital" style shield around a base or one that is only passable in a few locations.

These are strategic targets that allow for logistics based warfare rather than "kill zerg". A 30 man outfit defending or attacking a comms arrray can swing a fight - and a 30 man outfit can fast respond or ignore it at their peril.

The hex system is here a nightmare. There are few 'bottlenecks' that the lattice created. It is almost impossible to cut off or isolate without already dominating.

Originally Posted by Stanis

Hack and hold. LLU/CTF. Ticket Race (what we had most of Beta). Ticket Contest (what we have now).
Then we need ways to adjust or change this.
When hack starts - one of the nearest enemy comms array starts. By taking and holding that they convert Ticket Contest to "ticket race" for their empire.
You can now either: resecure the base itself. stop enemy tacking your comm array. go for the enemy comm array.
Or the enemy took out your associated shield hexs. By recapturing that hex you exclude enemy air from the base, restore internal 'blast shields' and make it possible to clear room-to-room.

Originally Posted by Stanis

Interlink farms Were such farm. Put some stealth units in to counter the radar and intel. Then put interlink hexes that provide enhanced radar coverage/intel. You might want to neutralise those before taking a base within it's sphere of influence.

Well one of the first concepts I developed when I came to this form was an idea for an Orbital Inter-Continental Structure that would connect all the landmasses with Orbital Elevators, which could then be used as beachheads to assault Continents from.

This eventually evolved to include a Pipeline Lattice, which would be the means Resources were transported around the globe and could be sabotaged to hamper enemy factions.

Such a fixed infrastructure system would work GREAT with ideas like these, each Outpost could provide some kind of benefit in addition to control of the Hex, while various pipeline nodes would provide secondary objectives with which Special Ops could deny the Resources and benefits granted by those Outpost.

Originally Posted by Stanis

Territory capture needs to be exploited.
In the sense that right now every territory is captured the same way.
Strategies will only evolve when mutliple options exist, and bases are different.
We need both the return of different capture types, but the introduction of options.
There is no "hold" possible. To introduce "hack and hold" is what many of us want. When that is viable and a last minute resecure achievable - many of us will be happy.

Yeah, this is where my lack of Experience with the Original Planetside hurts me, because I came from an environment where the development of actual capturable objectives was relatively recent thing despite how much it improved the experience for attackers...

Originally Posted by Stanis

Instead of LLU runs. Flip it around. How about the simply ability to bring a "control virus" from warpgate to a base. Replaces the AMS on a Sunderer. Only spawns at warpgate. Puts drive speed at 70%. When it enters a base SOI it gives you a +20% cap rate.
Oh yes - and every intel grid on the continent detects it and makes you a bright big shiny target on the map.

That's actually a great idea, but if it's going to be restricted to only being spawned at Warpgates it might as well be its own Vehicle.

It could be called the "Hack-Rabbit", and could provide that "mobile target" robocpf1 was talking about through completely player generated means!

It'd probably be the only Vehicle you'd need to Certify into, via the Leadership tree.
It'd also be completely defenseless, rather slow despite the name (perhaps it had rabbit ear antenna?), and the hacking effect won't stack (maybe even having enemy Hack-Rabbits cancel each-other out), but also comes with the ability to repair and restock friendly Vehicles by default.

This would make them the perfect, non-invasive way to herd the Zerg, by giving them something they know will draw the enemy out for a fight!

We could then call these Zerg the "Hounds!"

Originally Posted by Stanis

Defence does not need to reward more XP.
Defence needs to be possible. Right now it's more a case of counter-offensive or counter-attack.
I've yet to find a real bottleneck in terrain that can be held.
Virtually every bridge you can just go around, over, under or ignore.

We need both impassable terrain and ways to make an area no mans land.
Please bring back the PS1 CE model of many individual items, doing significantly less damage each. There is still boomers/c4 for the instakill wetwork - I want to deny a mountain pass not just 8m x 1m this side of the shield.

Well I don't agree with defense not rewarding XP, since that leads to people not even bothering to resecure just so they can swoop in and get a capture bonus, but I do agree that defensibility of terrain definitely needs a long hard look at and that more could be done to give players the tools needed to increase the defensibility of a base.

Originally Posted by Stanis

Deployment reductions? Hardly. I'd rather we could spawn everywhere - but the further away it was the longer 'respawn' time incurred.
Which suggests another hex benefit for spec ops : something that massively increases the spawn timers if not defended.
I can redeploy in 25 seconds across about 5 hexes .. so I can cross the map
in about 1min 30. Or I can /suicide and hop in 15 sec blocks.

Yeah, like I said before it is a pain in ass to need to break out a Vehicle every-time you need to reinforce another front, so this makes logical sense.

...I would also like to see Sunderer-AMS spawns take LONGER to recharge then a base's Spawn tubes, since it's kind of ridiculous that I'm able to respawn at a S-AMS 300 meters away faster then the room I just got run over exciting.

Originally Posted by Stanis

I'd like to be able to bind at a base.

Also good.

Originally Posted by Stanis

I do think that for the first 12hrs of actual in-game time new players should be able to spawn wherever they want in friendly territory without timer penalty. Part of the training/familiarisation process.
(Thats per account, not for new characters!!)

Eh, it'd at least make things less frustrating...

Originally Posted by Figment

I saw someone comment to use smaller transport units etc. That does nothing for small groups.

Well to be fair, they would be useful...

I mean, how many half filled Galaxies do you see flying around?

Originally Posted by Figment

What helps is bring down the sheer numerical spam of things. FORCIBLY CREWED VEHICLES (no seat switching either!) would help small units MUCH MORE.

Why? Because one crew tank is much easier to deal with than three solo tanks, simply because you need say 6-9 rockets to kill the one, not 15-27, the rate of fire towards the small units would be smaller as well.

Hell, I wouldn't mind them being able to switch seats AND giving the Driver control of the Machine Gun mount, the need for an independant Driver and Main Gunner is enough of a trade off all-around to make the REAL one-man tank, the Lightning, an actual viable option.

...And before you start with "Oh, but what about the Magrider?" know that the solution is EASY, albeit unwanted.
Just switch the hull mounted Main Cannon out for Secondary Turret options and make beefed up variants of the Saron HRB into the Main Turrets!

And quit moaning about "Oh, but we won't be able to shoot Infantry with the Hull gun!"
You know as well as I do that the Roomba is a Manmower and won't have any trouble in that regard.

[tkoreaper]

Originally Posted by TheFirstOmen

To answer the original question of the thread: No. Larger outfits do not hurt the game.

If a large outfit exists, it is because players enjoy being a part of something greater than themselves and that outfit is clearly doing something right to be recruiting so many people.

That being said, I'd like to address something that has been mentioned before but I would like to reiterate again on this thread:

Planetside 2 tactics are a joke. There I said it. Planetside 2 tactics are 110% a complete and utter piece of crap. In a larger outfit, I can tell you those leaders always send air, armor and infantry together or rolling close together.

Does this make them a zerg rush? It's debatable. I've heard both sides of the argument so many times I can tell you it largely depends on the situation. When you've got 1 infantry platoon with an armor platoon and air squads all on small outpost, I'd call that a zerg rush. However, because some of the outfits are more organized, they can redeploy in a pinch to attack an enemy force of equal-greater numbers.

However, the point still remains that the sure, guaranteed 100% fool proof way to win is overwhelming numbers. There's simply no counter to numbers and I do not believe that should EVER be any counter to being over-run with enemies. What there needs to be is more secondary objectives, as mentioned before, for smaller outfits or squads. I'm not exactly sure how these secondary objectives play into the overall meta-game, but it's something that is desperately needed in the game right now.

I agree with most of what you said. Large outfits simply don't ruin the game for me. I believe we're all just creating a problem that doesn't really exist. YES, there are large outfits. And YES there are many smaller ones, but we're all trying to achieve the same goals on the same side. There is absolutely no way to prove that when you see a ton of people, they're a zerg. Yes, it's a crap-load of people, but there's nothing to say that they aren't actually organized... Hell, it's more of a zerg when you have many many smaller groups each organized differently than a much larger group containing several platoons which are under a single command. And there's absolutely no way to prove that an single organized platoon is better than a much larger group when they can be just as organized... People need to pull their head out of their ass and grow up.

This is all just an excuse IMO. Should there be more to do than there is now? Hell yes, but don't blame the lack of things to do on large outfits... They're just trying to consolidate the empire and bring a fun/organized atmosphere to the masses. It's better that we stand together as an empire than differentiate ourselves... it does the empire no good when people harass and belittle one another. So forget all this garbage about larger outfits... look at the real problem!

[Sledgecrushr]

What Tkoreaper said.

[Kiljosh]

I am a member of the 666th Devil Dogs on Connery. I am not going to read 15 pages of replies to get up to speed I just wanted to put input in.

As a member of a large outfit, I see battles where we steamroll the defenders. I've been in battles where we are steamrolled. The problem is people see a tag on someone's name and figure that everyone with that tag is doing the same thing pushing the same objective. If this was the case the faction would lose ground elsewhere. i.e..NC push TR on Indar, while all forces are focused to the north the VS push into us from the west.

That is a zerg move. No strategy, just put everyone on one objective. The 666th has a few people commanding ground, air, and mechanized forces all at once. We do not simply zerg a waypoint. We usually have 1-2 squads on a point while the rest of the platoon/s secure surrounding areas. Armor squads watch for enemy armor and intercept. Air watches our armor's air space and keeps them safe. Even with all of this organization we still lose fights.

If major outfits are the problem then why does a major outfit still have trouble capping a continent? Because the zerg won't have it. Like it or not the zerg is the best defense against us larger outfits. They may be mindless but while we fight that zerg you speak of our numbers don't matter. So you smaller outfits should take advantage of this and split our forces by flanking/back capping.

I guess I'm saying there is no shame in being organized. If a large group of people want to be led by those with some strategic awareness and sense then what is wrong with that?

As a side note, I would LOVE to see a server or 3 implemented to accept outfit transfers. That way the large outfits could fight each other. If all 3 factions had serious coordination we would see some epic battles.

But guess what, even if that happens and the big outfits are centralized to a few servers, the zerg will still rule the "other" servers. Big outfits are not the problem, the mindless zerg is. Big outfits are the counter to those mindless zergs, zergs are the counter(along with other big outfits) to big outfits! If you small-medium sized outfits feel like you can't do anything then why don't you step away from the zerg war, cap somewhere else, and try to draw their forces away? Focus your forces on ONE objective in the zerg war. Hold that generator! Take down a satellite or two. Hell, camp a spawn if that's your thing.

These are just my opinions and don't necessarily reflect those of the 666th. We as an outfit operate under a Code of Conduct and it states among other things to treat others with respect. It's a part of why I joined. Not to zerg, not to win, but to be organized and be a part of a group of people that act with honor. -Orcuss

[Hosp]

I'll go so far as to agree zergfits aren't necessarily the problem.

The problem is more of:

PS1 = Skill >= Numbers
PS2 = Skill <= Numbers*

*(with extreme bias in favor of numbers).

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by Tatwi

I would like to limit large outfits from using the "everyone suicide and..." device. Malorn really sung up the praises of The Enclave, but this is their primary tactic, which is both lame in general (death traveling) and far too effective of a power multiplier. I loathed taking part in it, because it felt spastic, abusive, and flat out boring (win win win and maybe have someone to shoot at with 50 other people shooting at them too...), but the tactic worked so who was I to say anything. The trouble is, it works for all large groups at the expense of the game.

This should not be a viable tactic this command shouldn't even be in the game anymore.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Hamma

This should not be a viable tactic this command shouldn't even be in the game anymore.

I was going to say wasn't that removed when we switched from Beta... but then I realised we're still IN Beta...

[Hamma]

It disappeared then came back again sadly and it shouldn't be allowed this game already has to few logistics than allowing constant re-deployments from WG en mass.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Hamma

It disappeared then came back again sadly and it shouldn't be allowed this game already has to few logistics than allowing constant re-deployments from WG en mass.

And yet, redeploy only takes seconds longer ......


and this is not about Devildogs, there's no need to be so defensive. Look, I play on Miller, I've never seen Devildogs or The Enclave in action, nor AT come to that even though I played PS1 on Gemini

[angryphoenix]

I'm going to flip this conversation and lay blame on the small outfits for zerging.

Most big outfits are organised. Take multiple points across the map, communicate and work as a team. They strike fast and move on to their next objective. They are not the zerg.

The zerg are all your small outfits that have no ability to communicate properly. You all gather up and like lemmings, battle your way from one base to the next.

Look at the combined force of a zerg attack. Do you only see one Outfit tag? Probably not. It's just a bunch of solo players and small outfits rolling along with the flow because they have no idea what else to do or how to make a difference.

Now with that said I also think it's a problem with the games design that has made it impossible for the majority of the player populous to work together other than in a Zerg way. More tools are needed.

So when it comes to the zerg I think everyone here bitching that it's the big outfits fault I really think you need to look at how you, as a small outfit, play the game. Big outfits make the game more fun when they are well organised like the one I am in.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by angryphoenix

I'm going to flip this conversation and lay blame on the small outfits for zerging.

Most big outfits are organised. Take multiple points across the map, communicate and work as a team. They strike fast and move on to their next objective. They are not the zerg.

The zerg are all your small outfits that have no ability to communicate properly. You all gather up and like lemmings, battle your way from one base to the next.

Look at the combined force of a zerg attack. Do you only see one Outfit tag? Probably not. It's just a bunch of solo players and small outfits rolling along with the flow because they have no idea what else to do or how to make a difference.

Now with that said I also think it's a problem with the games design that has made it impossible for the majority of the player populous to work together other than in a Zerg way. More tools are needed.

So when it comes to the zerg I think everyone here bitching that it's the big outfits fault I really think you need to look at how you, as a small outfit, play the game. Big outfits make the game more fun when they are well organised like the one I am in.

Nobody is saying it's the big outfit's fault as far as I can see. If GOTR, Devildogs and The Enclave can organise themselves, good for them.