Huge Outfits and PlanetSide 2 - Page 25

FireWater · 2012-12-30, 05:11 PM

I just want to pose a couple of questions to the community as a whole. If anyone is offended by these questions, I apologize in advance.

1) What exactly is the operational definition of a Zergfit? It seems that some large outfits are zergfits, while others aren't. How does one define Zergfit?

2) In an MMO/FPS where it is strictly PvP, how come so many players get dysregulated over the "size always matters" concept. One of the main draws to PS2 is the fact it isn't instanced small squad combat. It appears that PS2 is trying to offer something different from the status quo which is a good thing.

3) How do we know that small changes designed to assist small outfits won't have revenge effects that large outfits may actually benefit more.

4) To piggyback on question 3, what can small outfits do that large outfits cannot do?

Reason being is that I am in a medium sized outfit, we are selective of our outfit members, and at the same time we will open our squads to the public save during ops nights. We have 3 capped Waterson a few, and have held indar for the past 2 weeks with strong coordination amongst other outfits on Waterson.

Is Waterson simply Zerg free? Because we have come across large forces before. Or do we as an outfit and as alliance, have enough skill and tact to compete against large forces, by adding both quantity and quality to our forces.

Sentinels experiences a large amount of success, yet we don't have 1600 members. there are times when we do get smacked as well, but for the most part when we want to take something, we find a way to do it.

I am just curious what separates us from those outfits who are around the same size and may not be getting as much success.

I mean I get that large outfits can sometimes be frustrating for smaller ones, however if they truly are without skill, than a semi-organized small outfit alliance should be able to conquer them quickly. The Zerg is fickle, and I find that they are easy to break if you can smack down a few waves.

Fear The Amish · 2012-12-30, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by FireWater

I just want to pose a couple of questions to the community as a whole. If anyone is offended by these questions, I apologize in advance.

1) What exactly is the operational definition of a Zergfit? It seems that some large outfits are zergfits, while others aren't. How does one define Zergfit?

2) In an MMO/FPS where it is strictly PvP, how come so many players get dysregulated over the "size always matters" concept. One of the main draws to PS2 is the fact it isn't instanced small squad combat. It appears that PS2 is trying to offer something different from the status quo which is a good thing.

3) How do we know that small changes designed to assist small outfits won't have revenge effects that large outfits may actually benefit more.

4) To piggyback on question 3, what can small outfits do that large outfits cannot do?

Reason being is that I am in a medium sized outfit, we are selective of our outfit members, and at the same time we will open our squads to the public save during ops nights. We have 3 capped Waterson a few, and have held indar for the past 2 weeks with strong coordination amongst other outfits on Waterson.

Is Waterson simply Zerg free? Because we have come across large forces before. Or do we as an outfit and as alliance, have enough skill and tact to compete against large forces, by adding both quantity and quality to our forces.

Sentinels experiences a large amount of success, yet we don't have 1600 members. there are times when we do get smacked as well, but for the most part when we want to take something, we find a way to do it.

I am just curious what separates us from those outfits who are around the same size and may not be getting as much success.

I mean I get that large outfits can sometimes be frustrating for smaller ones, however if they truly are without skill, than a semi-organized small outfit alliance should be able to conquer them quickly. The Zerg is fickle, and I find that they are easy to break if you can smack down a few waves.

BRIT is a Zergfit Fire, DVS flirts the line sometimes. But we got kinda lucky Firewater with our location on Waterson we have a literal zergfit with BRIT and a kinda one with DVS, But that is really all. The rest are all small - medium sized outfits.

Whiteagle · 2012-12-30, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Fear The Amish

BRIT is a Zergfit Fire, DVS flirts the line sometimes. But we got kinda lucky Firewater with our location on Waterson we have a literal zergfit with BRIT and a kinda one with DVS, But that is really all. The rest are all small - medium sized outfits.

What about Angry Joe's Angry Army?

Or that new one, OMAD I think is the tag...

Fear The Amish · 2012-12-30, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

What about Angry Joe's Angry Army?

Or that new one, OMAD I think is the tag...

whats Angry Army tag? don't think i have seen them.

Whiteagle · 2012-12-30, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Fear The Amish

whats Angry Army tag? don't think i have seen them.

It's ether AA or AJA... not exactly sure which...

Unlike Biscut's Outfit, ever time I see them in force they are getting shit DONE.

Saintlycow · 2012-12-30, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by FireWater

4) To piggyback on question 3, what can small outfits do that large outfits cannot do?

This is the holy grail of all questions. What advantage does a small outfit have over a large outfit? None really, other than the possibility of fitting in one sunderer

ElementalFiend · 2012-12-30, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Your lack of tactical flexibility and unwillingness to work with others in a massive fps=fail

This has got to be a joke coming from 666. You guys literally spam heavy infantry at points until you A) overrun it or B) meet some resistance and immediately back out. The ONLY exception seems to be your massive armor columns which frankly, win out solely due to numbers. You guys represent the exact issue that is being brought to light here.

It is a shame because you can bring together some of the largest forces on the server and the TR zerg / aircavs move along unchecked.

I run in one of the largest ( if not largest ) VS outfits on Connery and we routinely butt heads with you guys. Its the same thing every time, throw a few full galaxies of guys at a point and hope it sticks.

FireWater · 2012-12-30, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Fear The Amish

BRIT is a Zergfit Fire, DVS flirts the line sometimes. But we got kinda lucky Firewater with our location on Waterson we have a literal zergfit with BRIT and a kinda one with DVS, But that is really all. The rest are all small - medium sized outfits.

I get what you are trying to say, but my question was "what makes a zergfit a zergfit"

Quite frankly, I've never seen either of those outfits pose a significant threat to the Vanu.

ElementalFiend · 2012-12-30, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

For all of my support of PSU, I have to say that Hamma's Tweet that 1600+ member outfits are "trash" is higly offensive. I am rarely frank, but, this is completely ignorant and it may suck that a large "zergfit" is ruining your fun on your server, but that does not represent others. Sure, I know they are out there. I have many alts and I get random outfit invites on them, but don't lump all large outfits together. Planetside 2 is about offering the large scale and that is fuking cool. Find your role, but dont b1tch because you cannot stop the 600 guys moving on you. Honestly, <3 Hamma, but this is so whiney it's crap to even respond. Get creative, grow some balls and farm those fuks. We do not bitcch, we equip to win and overcome.

Your outfit is literal definition of a zergfit. I'm not surprised to see you took offense to those statements.

FrOzenFrOg · 2012-12-30, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by robocpf1

Malorn, I'll throw out some examples I've found, hopefully they'll get the creative juices flowing. Without delving too deeply into "what the problem is", because people have nailed that, here are just some things from PS1 that made small outfits thrive, and a couple of "new" ideas.

1) Towers. In PS1, a "Tower" was either in the middle of nowhere and nobody fought there, was in the middle of a main thoroughfare for vehicles (like the one between Aja and Bomazi, it was the focus of some intense armor fights) or were "tied" to a base. They were important. You had to have the tower to take the base 90% of the time. In PS2, there are too many different outposts (and four different spawns per facility, one of which is a "tower"). Small outfits used to excel at denying these and starving off the large outfits that were trying to take the base. Without the tower, large outfits couldn't push in, and the assault would fizzle. In PS2, this situation doesn't happen.

2) Base draining / NTU. A way to hit a base that isn't linked. Imagine on Indar if a small outfit snuck behind VS lines and either captured Hvar, killing our tech, or neutralized it, causing nobody to have it but now it has to be both recaptured and filled with fuel. It doesn't matter if you're able to hold it very long, you've just killed our ability to pull tanks, and that both gives you a great fight and helps your empire. If our empire doesn't respond promptly enough, you can go back and kill us even more. This also stops the zerg from jumping so quickly. If we have to actually stop and fix what we break, defenders have more time to prepare. Usually, when I get ousted from a base, by the time I spawn at the next base up there is already a Sunderer deploying and a large tank force rolling in because the zerg doesn't have to wait. Let's make them wait a couple of minutes.

3) Generators were linked to the benefit, not to a shield. Gen holds were a huge draw to small outfits. You go and kill the gen of the only interlink on a continent, everyone's swarming to you. You might hold it long enough for your empire's larger force to push into their base though. Without that radar, their forces are weaker. You could kill tech or their dropship repair benefit, too. Nobody really killed gens for the biolab or amp benefit, but if they were more important that could work.

4) Cave Modules were a force multiplier. I think I can reliably say that when SOE released core combat, even though the BFRs weren't great, the mods you could harvest from caves made small outfits even more of a threat. They also gave small outfits yet another target - take out the enemy's mods so they have less benefits, or even better, STEAL the enemy's mods and take them as your own.

5) Make-Your-Own-Objective! In PS1, you could manipulate the lattice and the spawning mechanism to sort of pick an objective that wasn't an objective. The best way I know how to describe this is a "Medical Room Hold". You get a squad of guys and take the medical room in a PS1 bio lab and make a nuisance of yourselves. This is a base on the front line, people are spawning, and you and your squad are killing them all as they try to run out the door. Eventually the other empire notices and rushes you, but you've just delayed their vehicle reinforcements by several minutes and caused a pretty big diversion. Loads of exp as well. Or, if the NC is about to cap a TR LLU...maybe a small VS outfit comes in and camps the capture area so they can't. That was always fun.

6) A dynamic, mobile target - this is a new idea. Imagine a cross between an LLU and the rabbit event, except now instead of it being a rare event, it's up every few minutes. Small outfits move faster and with more precision, so how about a big blinking target that gives the empire some sort of benefit and the outfit exp if they capture it take it back to a certain base? It constantly changes where it spawns and the target base. Alert, enemy radar module located at Scarred Mesa. Capture it and bring it to Hvar, and we'll be able to see the enemy's radar signatures for the next 10 minutes!

7) Non-vehicle areas. A fortress where infantry reign supreme. The best footsoldiers survive. No tank shells or Daltons, no barrages from Lightnings, no roadkills.

8) LLUs / Capture the Flag - a faster way to take a base. Currently all base captures are by "king of the hill". I think many people have voiced their support for this and the devs have even mentioned they want to have more varied capture mechanics, I'm just noting it here.

9) Resource scarcity - I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm never low on resources. Ever. Unless I pull a tank and then immediately want to pull another one, I don't even keep up with how many resources I have. My infantry resources are important to me so I can keep refilling my supply of revive grenades and C4. Do we still get resources for fighting in an area? So if we fight at Ceres Biotech, which has infantry resources, and we get a kill, do we still get resources? Maybe that should be removed and we should only get resources during the "deposit" ticks, instead of accumulating them through fighting. That would give specific territories more value.

Me like!!!!!!!!!

Dkamanus · 2012-12-30, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by FireWater

I just want to pose a couple of questions to the community as a whole. If anyone is offended by these questions, I apologize in advance.

1) What exactly is the operational definition of a Zergfit? It seems that some large outfits are zergfits, while others aren't. How does one define Zergfit?

Considering the zerg of Starcraft, a zergfit would be an outfit that throws Hillarious amounts of player on one single target, and expect to win not thanks to tactical strategy, but through sheer amount of numbers, weakening the defenders/attackers while doing so thanks to the lack of numbers.

2) In an MMO/FPS where it is strictly PvP, how come so many players get dysregulated over the "size always matters" concept. One of the main draws to PS2 is the fact it isn't instanced small squad combat. It appears that PS2 is trying to offer something different from the status quo which is a good thing.

When people think of big battles, they think big outfits with organized divisions, each supporting each other. Zerg vs. zerg isn't thething MOST people qualify as Size always matters.

3) How do we know that small changes designed to assist small outfits won't have revenge effects that large outfits may actually benefit more.

We won't. But it will benefit more organized outfits (which have a tendency to be smaller outfits) then larger outfits, with too many players to rigorously control.

4) To piggyback on question 3, what can small outfits do that large outfits cannot do?

As of first, focusing on objectives. Large outfits can't control all their players in the majority of these outfits anyway, and most have no desire to be anything else then a "LARGE" outfit. Second, organized gameplay. Having a smaller outfit allows people to become more close-knit and depend more on each other, creating a better experience and more dependable member that will rely easier on organization.

Larger outfits will most of the time not fit together, having a way smaller close knit core and a lot of fat to burn, without reliable members, imo.

Aedn · 2012-12-30, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by FireWater

I just want to pose a couple of questions to the community as a whole. If anyone is offended by these questions, I apologize in advance.

1) What exactly is the operational definition of a Zergfit? It seems that some large outfits are zergfits, while others aren't. How does one define Zergfit?

specifically for PS2 its all based on opinion and mine is that most outfits who group up and use numbers as a primary tactic to win are zergs. They may be organized but when the answer to all issues is resorting to human wave attacks, its pretty self explanatory. At its core its not really even the large outfits that are the problem, its the extremely poor game design. whats worse is a large outfit basically has a built in zerg effect because most lone wolfs will end up looking to go to the same area they are, again not the fault of the outfit itself, just the nature of the game and the people who play it. i would love personally to see a combined arms battle that went on for 2-3 hours, sadly again due to game design, it almost never happens.

2) In an MMO/FPS where it is strictly PvP, how come so many players get dysregulated over the "size always matters" concept. One of the main draws to PS2 is the fact it isn't instanced small squad combat. It appears that PS2 is trying to offer something different from the status quo which is a good thing.

Quantity is the path of least resistance, its always the easiest to achieve in most MMO's. I do not think anyone who posted in this thread really has an issue with giant battles, the issue is with the battles being mindless and pointless as they are now, or actually having some strategic and tactical meaning to be placed within to create an overall front line or war. Right now, all you have to do is look at the map, 90% of hexes are empty, a handful have some population, and a few are where the zergs are.

3) How do we know that small changes designed to assist small outfits won't have revenge effects that large outfits may actually benefit more.

you can never know for sure until its tried, but the fact that there is no real meta game, has turned the game stale for many in a very short period of time. However, most of the things discussed here in terms of logistics, defense, and other issues would benefit large outfits as well as small ones.

4) To piggyback on question 3, what can small outfits do that large outfits cannot do?

right now basically nothing, its either join the zerg or work around it and hope it wanders your way in time.

PS2 is going to be interesting to watch, but its a bare bones game at the moment, that really offers nothing in terms of quality game play over other combined arms games currently on the market outside of its "huge battles" which are becoming scarce due to human nature coupled with game design issues. This thread points out most of the problem areas, and has some solutions, so no reason to go over it again. It will be worth staying around to see how the game shapes up in the next 3-6 months though. Hopefully it wont flop like most of the MMO's these days.

Noivad · 2012-12-30, 06:30 PM

I read all posts on all 25 pages before posting. A Lot of good information presented. Thank you all for a good read.

I runs a small Outfit on Mattherson. We field no more the 24 people, are coming up on 50 members total, but we are growing through a lengthy selection process. Some of us are former Military. Every member is given training and has to meet certain requirements.

Huge Outfits do not bother us, as usually we don't try to fight them all at one time. We choose the where, when, how to attack them. We "break contact" when their mass becomes greater then our ability to fight them which happens rarely. We usually accomplish our objectives before the zerg get there, but even when they are there, we pick smaller objectives to accomplish within high contested areas. We are Rapid Deployment Infantry most of the time.

We have developed the Overcome, Adapt, Improvise Mindset to the Current Rules of the game even though we believe that some of those rules are broken. All members Are light Assault first, but have other class secondaries that they specialize in. We adapt as a group to fight the battle as it changes on the fly.

We offer other small Outfits the following ideas and answers to Malorn's post.

Originally Posted by Malorn*

* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)

Resources do not hinder us as all resources of every member belongs to the Outfit. If a dedicated Vehicle Driver/Pilot needs a vehicle, and does not have the timer or resources to pull it, another member pulls it for him. This allows us to stay on Gate camped planets longer, providing a fight for the enemy holding them there till other TR reinforcements arrive. We attack enemy resources on a regular basis.

* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?

Because we are usually one of the 1st Outfits to an objective, We usually have to wait for the bigger outfits to get there, we have noticed, at least on Mattherson, that the percentage of NON Outfit players to an objective is not as great as the percentage of Outfit players. And in fairness to the larger Outfits they usually get there near the end of the cap. We usually have our meager numbers spread out on all cap points.

* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?

Our Outfit attacks bases that are being taken from TR, we don't stay after a base is capped. We play the Attack Role 95% of the time either on enemy territory or against attacking forces.

* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?

To an outfit like mine it would not make a difference.

* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)

With the current game mechanics we do not have any problems re-spawning in the same area. When we do run out of spawn points we head back to the warp gate.

The Galaxy is our main transportation, but we do use other vehicles as well as the war dictates. In PS1 we could travel with 15 people in one gal, but in PS2 that number is cut down to only 12. I would like to see the seating increased to 14 people so I could drop 3 Fire Teams from one Galaxy and leave a 2 man crew in a gal to fly/defend it. The Fire Team is the smallest fighting unit the US Military.

We use TS3 as our choice of communication, as we run multiple channels for our teams, unlike some outfits that have 50 people in one channel.

We use a decentralized leadership, and allow independent teams to be in control of their assault, with Squad leaders only providing an administrative role to provide Spawn beacons for their fire teams.

To combat possible infiltration by NC or VS members to our Outfit, we do not use way points. We use an extensive whisper system that allows Team Leaders to communicate much like the Military does in Real Life. We don't micro manage our people. Every one learns their job as wells as everyone else's in the their team. You have to be a proven leader to be a leader.

We belong to an alliance that started in PS1, and continues today in PS2. We communicate with them via forums, Command Voice Chat, Leader chat, and /tells and in formal events through the TS3 ability, to allow separate Outfit TS3 Servers to cross communicate.

To Malorn, I would say to tell Higby, That this is a War Game. You said Outfits were gonna be like the 101st. There are less Outfit tools in this game then there were in PS1. You have built a game with limited structure. You need to fix that as a priority.

Outfits are a community within the community. Your BR Military Rank system is wrong from the get go. You created a military game but you take the privilege of giving Rank to its members away from the Outfit. Pretty soon you will have generals running around everywhere. And you mixed Military Services to boot. Outfits use Military Rank structure or something more then the 5 choices (slots) you have given us to work with. And while my TAG is nice, and would like to keep it, I would pick having my whole Outfit name up over every ones name over the TAG.

People belong to the Outfits, not to the game. People play the game. People want to belong to something more then just the game or a faction, and PS2 has failed in providing all the tools to make it happen. PS2 servers the solo player. There was more team work in PS1.

You can't sort Outfit information, you can't even see the date that someone joined. You can't even seen all the members in a platoon. Thats pretty sad.

But hey I digress. The game is still fun, and we will as an Outfit work around the obstacles you have given us. There is my two bones. DOGs don,t use cents.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-12-30, 07:00 PM

Personally, I love zerg outfits. [Definition - Zerg outfits are groups that have lots of members but don't have strong leadership. The battle commander might order platoons 2 and 3 to "Take Tawrich" but the platoon/squad commanders are ineffective at actually carrying out those orders, they have little or no strategic or tactical knowledge of what they're up against - whatever.]

The point is that zerg outfits (in my definition) bring lots of bodies to spawn rooms below my liberator. That - in turn - means that at my peak, I'm getting 1.8 kills per shot. Not 1.8 KDR, My KDR is like 100+. I'm talking about Kills per Dalton round.

Just a smudge of organisation would mean my libfarming would simply stop! And it's not like what I'm doing is novel or rare. Personally when I'm footing it, I expect to be libfarmed for a few spawns before I go somewhere else.

So, huge outfits right now are awesome. If they start doing training days and instituting SOPs, then the game will change.

I'll give it a few months and then all the temporary zerglings who are "trying out the game" will fade away and all the serious players (who on my server seem to always be away from Indar) will be able to play it in the spirit of PS1.

FireWater · 2012-12-31, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

Considering the zerg of Starcraft, a zergfit would be an outfit that throws Hillarious amounts of player on one single target, and expect to win not thanks to tactical strategy, but through sheer amount of numbers, weakening the defenders/attackers while doing so thanks to the lack of numbers.

Fair enough, but I think even in SC II Zerg doesn't necessarily dominate the other 2 races, as the game is fairly balanced.

When people think of big battles, they think big outfits with organized divisions, each supporting each other. Zerg vs. zerg isn't thething MOST people qualify as Size always matters.

If you took away clan tags while playing, would the average PS2 player be able to tell the difference between zerg vs zerg as opposed to big outfits with organized divisions? Hell I have a problem telling the difference because we mow through so many different players/outfits.

We won't. But it will benefit more organized outfits (which have a tendency to be smaller outfits) then larger outfits, with too many players to rigorously control.

As of first, focusing on objectives. Large outfits can't control all their players in the majority of these outfits anyway, and most have no desire to be anything else then a "LARGE" outfit. Second, organized gameplay. Having a smaller outfit allows people to become more close-knit and depend more on each other, creating a better experience and more dependable member that will rely easier on organization.

I would challenge the "can't" in your second sentence. If Large outfits can't control their players to a certain degree, why are they such a problem? Also a socially close knit team would yield better results on the battlefield? Maybe yes maybe no, but large outfits can form tight groups of people as well within their own outfit. In fact I think 666 Devil Dogs encourages that. Just because players are friends with each other doesn't mean they will ultimately play better, it may mean that they have a better social experience overall.

The reason I am bringing this up and kind of being a pain in the ass is that when developers ask for feedback, I want to be more than just "large outfits ruin my fun".

This game is an MMO FPS, which in my opinion stresses the FPS more than the MMO. What I am curious to see if all of the smaller TR and Vanu outfits that are on the same server can ban together to break the zerg (if they are true zerg) we will find out a couple of things.

1) It truly would be the numbers, if you have comparable numbers on the side of smaller outfits that are bound together by alliance, vs one very large outfit and the alliance wins, then we can determine that the large outfit is only useful because of their numbers, and not the quality of their firepower.

2) If the alliance loses (i.e. status quo remains), and numbers weren't an issue, than I think each outfit/player might have to do some "soul searching" to figure why they are not getting the success that they feel they deserve.

3) We would find out if it is better to have one hive mind, or several different outfits that share a common goals, but how they reach that goal is up to them. So in other words the "what" is the same and the "how" is different. Or if there will be no difference at all and there is just preference.

For example, we are having an Ops night vs. Brit this Friday. It will be our alliance vs Brit (as best we can do it, as there are no instances in PS2). I am eager to find out a few things. First, the first time I even saw BRIT was the other night when Sentinels were having a skirmish with them. (I killed TotalBiscuit 4 times w00t w00t

) Also if they are as large as they say they are, I am wondering myself how the alliance will do in an Ops vs Ops scenario if you will. Which will be difficult to ultimately determine as we can't control who gets involved in the fight, and for all we know NC can try to smash what we will be fighting over.

However I think it will be a great time, and I am curious if our united but independent outfits can compete against 1 large outfit. And if thats the case, perhaps that for now, smaller outfits can solve the "zerg" problem socially, rather than depend on the developers to make changes that may not even work anyway.