Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Serving up destruction, one frag at a time.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2014-06-03, 06:05 PM | [Ignore Me] #49 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
I got some questions:
Asking, because you might discourage fighting at certain points where players give up. I would also suggest that if all continents are locked, the following occurs:
I would like to remind you that the original "Continent locking" had the following effects: Continent lock: - You would "lock" a continent by taking ALL the linked bases on the other side of the warpgates of that continent, thereby denying a link. - All minor bases (towers) switched to the winner's side once all major bases were captured. - Players weren't physically locked out of the continent. - You could still create a new link by neutralising a base (draining it from NTU) Continent closed: - For certain events, empires were literally prevented from entering a continent (they would be allowed to invade only one specific home continent of a single enemy who would often concentrate their forces on either fight due to lacking manpower for both). - As a consequence of the above, players would start ghosthacking the world if they won one of the home continent fights, since they couldn't go elsewhere. - Players had to wait and warpgate camp till the last continent would open. This would sometimes result in a complete world domination by the winner of the home cont defense that the defender gave up on. Cave lock: - All cave modules actived for all linked surface bases. Cave closed: - No more respawns possible, whether you have a base or AMS, just revives from medics. - Could still continue to fight and capture links if you still had a single remaining base. You could win through attrition (killing the enemies and prevent them from being revived). The system as proposed now - as I understand it anyway - reminds me an awful lot of a combination between the closed continent and closed cave. So that's a bit different from a "locked" continent. As stated before, the "lock" was capturing all access points on the other side of the warpgate (even a hack and therefore denying the link, would suffice to stop or stall an invasion, sometimes resulting in a counter-invasion!). I hope everyone is aware of the differences between the Locked Continent definition between PlanetSide 1 and 2. Last edited by Figment; 2014-06-03 at 06:27 PM. |
||
|
2014-06-03, 06:10 PM | [Ignore Me] #50 | |||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Associate Programmer |
When a continent lock is broken, the continent has it’s warpgates configuration incremented to the next and default territory split is set for all 3 empires, and spawning is reenabled. Thresholds are set by designers. It will trigger an alert. When the alert is won by the conquering faction, the continent is locked. Last stands will be subject to alert XP like normal. |
|||
|
2014-06-04, 05:20 AM | [Ignore Me] #53 | ||||||
Major
|
As for the hockey thing. I've seen this hockey video before. What if I implement a PS2-style no-sneaking-behind-the-goal-post-like-a-ninja-zone. That wild move would not ever happen ever. I read the Youtube comments and they are going crazy about this move. Dropping a huge offensive no-skating zone circle around that goalpost would severely reduce alot of gameplay as well, I'd say.
Most pads are 5 feet away from the console. In a middle of a raging fight. you mean to tell me, 5-20 guys with line-of-sight won't spot it? Because that's the crux of it. I'm talking about mining it in a middle of a fight, especially at the crucial vehicle pad next to the Tech Plant SCU. I really doubt there's someone going around, randomly mining empty bases just to make alot of newbies quit. Also, how is dropping an AV mine on a vehicle pad different from dropping AI mine on a stair or a doorway? The way you characterize newbies, means they will just die off these mines and they will quit as well. And I sincerely doubt you would call dropping AI mine on a stair, door or an elevator pad cheesy too. Because if it is, then as all slippery slopes go, the AI mines will be next to drop off the precipice.
I'm pretty sure Higby said kill-cam was added to stop newbs from being farmed or something to that effect, especially by Snipers. That's why imo, it's better off to just remove their stealth ability. Stealths are for infiltrators. Having triple advantage of ranged, stealth and 1-shot kill is broken.
If I try to park on the NDZ: - Am I interacting with other players? No - Am I fighting other players? No - What gameplay is created? None - Who is preventing me from parking? The Devs - Then who am I fighting? The Devs - Who is winning? The Devs - Are the Devs a faction? No - Is there a gameplay born out of this Player-Dev NDZ interaction? None I could do the same comparison with the Vehicle pads, Jumppads and Death Cam. We're not talking about safezone areas like the Warpgate or Spawn rooms. It's in the middle of the battlefield. Who determines what Continent will be locked? Player vs Player interactions. Who determines who parks in the NDZ? Developers, not Player vs. Player interation. Do players have any input to at least turn it off via generator? None. There is literally no player input, interaction or gameplay with this system. It's not like a Generator mechanic, which has pvp and gameplay implications. Give us tools instead that effect the same NDZ using Player vs. Player interaction (which is gameplay). Example: I suggested the Sunderer Jammer as alternative even before NDZ was released. - Offense deploys AMS Sunderer. - Defense deploys Sunderer Jammer and prevents AMS Sundy from spawning player. - That interaction has the same effect but is a Player vs. Player interaction (which is pvp is called Gameplay). - Offense can move the AMS Sundy from the Sundy Jammer's AOE or just blow it up. - Defense can defend the Sundy jammer or attack the AMS Sundy or both. - All of these Player vs. Player gameplay interaction. The Devs ideally would have just given us tool fight each other, while removing their "hands on" fingerprint in-game, hence "hands off". |
||||||
|
2014-06-04, 06:11 AM | [Ignore Me] #54 | ||
Contributor General
|
Thanks for the updates Muldoon
On a different note this highlights again how much the game is twisting and turning because production on new continents is so slow or wasn't done prior to launch. The version of continent locking wanted is very simple but requires several continents than we have now - in their absence we get this above and WDS too, both of which are more complicated and less satisfying. I would say (with tongue in my cheek) that all of this should be part of a 'lessons learnt' review - you should have the important stuff in before launch because sure as shootin' it will be harder afterwards. |
||
|
2014-06-04, 12:34 PM | [Ignore Me] #55 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
Regarding the NDZ, I find it ironic it is okay to park a tank next to a spawnpoint and actually having the ability to completely control a base through that far more annoying.
Both NDZ and spawn camping are down to base design being based on Suiss cheese instead of internal fortresses with layered defense: From out to in: Anything goes -> field combat: (air) vehicles dominant Base walls -> siege gameplay A: vehicles dominant Courtyard -> breach gameplay: courtyard shields as first objective, access to inner area second objective. Vehicles not dominant but present Inner base first level: Infantry can hold this without too much influence from vehicles Inner base second level: infantry vs infantry only Inner base third level: primary objectives and spawn, infantry only. The NDZ was created because the primary objective was paved in the courtyard level for most outposts. Holding your ground is made next to impossible. |
||
|
2014-06-04, 02:20 PM | [Ignore Me] #56 | |||
First Sergeant
|
Why would nubs stick around after getting mopped by vets? Um, because they're not pussies? That's the simple answer. Maybe you can't relate. That's how many of the dev decisions in this game seem to be made. 1) Nub(dev) logs in. 2) Nub gets owned. 3) Nub nerfs weapon/playstyle that owned him. What got me so addicted to online gaming was getting my ass handed to me in Counterstrike. |
|||
|
2014-06-04, 02:44 PM | [Ignore Me] #57 | |||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Associate Programmer |
You put a lot of content in your posts, and again, I disagree with a lot of it from a game design point of view. You say No deploy zones is fighting the devs, and I disagree. Why, in soccer or hockey, am I not allowed to just stand next to the goalie and goalhang the whole game? The reason I can't is the offsides rule. Am I fighting the rule makers of FIFA or the NHL? No, I am playing a balanced game that gives people a sporting chance to win. If we let any strategy go, we start getting cheap no-skill tactics like that. I actually don't like Anti-Personnel mines either, and think they're pretty cheap too. I'd love to remove them from the game, or make them give more feedback so people have a better chance of not dying to them. But the difference is vehicles have a large cooldown and resource cost. If you mine a pad, they essentially waste resources, where you can just respawn as a player. And people can't learn to play vehicles in combat if they never get a chance to spawn. If for a moment I agreed we should take stealth away from the infiltrator, the community would go berserk. People are invested in the game, and we can't just take a primary feature away from a class. Not to mention at the range they do most of their killing, the stealth wouldn't have a huge effect anyway. The sunderer jammer is a neat idea, but it's not something we need right now. There are more pressing issues. |
|||
|
2014-06-04, 05:38 PM | [Ignore Me] #58 | |||
Sergeant Major
|
So cool, you want the game to cater to the "hardcore master race alpha" nerd? Alright, then what you basically want is for the game to be empty, with only a couple hundred playing it per server. Kudos. Last edited by BlaxicanX; 2014-06-04 at 08:27 PM. |
|||
|
2014-06-04, 06:08 PM | [Ignore Me] #59 | |||
Nothing Muldoon wrote warranted such a reply.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature *Disclaimer: When participating in a discussion I do not do so in the capacity of a semidivine moderator. Feel free to disagree with any of my opinions.
Last edited by ChipMHazard; 2014-06-04 at 06:21 PM. |
||||
|
2014-06-04, 07:17 PM | [Ignore Me] #60 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
Oi, that's uncalled for.
Just state your prefered design argument and provide some alternatives. Don't simply insult or suggest only the elite is allowed to play the game. Why not suggest some ways to let devs help players learn the game, rather than take the easy route and insult a dev for not doing as you want without being constructive about it? Even though I disagree with the solution taken by the dev team, he's got a point on the new player thing. However, while I disagree with the solution provided. Currently the game provides and applies a "bandaid" or "cure" for the player (to a minor extend). Personally I'd prefer "prevention" and teaching "self-medication" through tutorials and hints in game. Possibly players that die frequently getting some suggestions on changing their behaviour through loading screen texts or some such. Raging about it is not the solution. |
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|