Cont Lock finally?

[Mordelicius]

Originally Posted by Muldoon

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.

Except, defense is allowed to park the Sunderer next to Capture point, correct? In hockey, are defense allowed to just block the goalpost all the time? Surely if the defense is allowed to park a Sundy to the capture point in PS2, then logically, and by rule of reciprocity, offense can be allowed as well.

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.

I knew it, AI mines are next....Again its' that "hands on" philosophy that's encroaching too much on Player vs. Player space.

And AV mines on vehicle pads is just normal gameplay that involve balanced risk/rewards.
Isolated Base in the middle of nowhere (0-5 players) - Low risk getting killed by defense/ low chance getting a kill. (Why even bother going to a faraway base to just drop an AV mine???)

Medium fight (5-20 defenders) - normal risk getting killed or losing the mine / normal reward getting a kill.

Heavy fighting (20-48+ defenders) - high risk dying trying to drop a mine or losing the mine / high reward taking out a vehicle.

The reason why I AV mine pads in the first place is in, for example, Tech Plants, the ideal spot to put my Sundy spawn is just out side the NDZ which is right outside the SCU. And that pad is right behind. See how all this limitations are so tied together and so frustrating?

It's the the same with attacking Vanu Archives and one can't mine the pads. They pull out a tank and your Sundy is toast next to C. Imo, it's a very valid strategy.

Imo, the Devs are mischaracterizing/misidentifying this as the problem. The problem I see here is more of a lack of a tutorial on AV mines or even AI mines. The newbies just lack a tutorial on how to deal with mines in general, that's all and that's it.Take any PvP MMOs without tutorials, and any players will be confused, even if the mechanics are simple.

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.

Whoa, wait a second! Snipers are different from Infiltrators!! I'm proposing removing it from long-ranged Snipers. Hence, if they have a Sniper rifle equipped, stealth is disabled. So if a regular short ranged weapon is equipped, then Infiltrators can still stealth. And oh, stealth has huge effect for infiltrators. That's why can they are mobile and can change location with impunity. There's way too much advantage and no downside at all.

I heard of a plan, according to a Higby video, to give Light Assults dual wield capability for their revamp. As a result the jump jet cannot be used while dual wielding, correct? Well, Snipers, has 3 advantages (range, stealth, 1-hit head shot). If LA jump jet will be disabled with dual wield, why can't Sniper (not infiltrator) stealth ability be disabled when sniping. Point being stealth is for infiltrators only, but for sniping, it is way stacked.

The sunderer jammer is a neat idea, but it's not something we need right now. There are more pressing issues.

It would be great if it can substitute for the NDZ instead. It's a much better mechanic.

The PS2 Generator mechanic is the best example of "hands off" approach. It's all player vs. player interaction and gameplay. There's no Dev hands preventing players from doing anything, it's all player driven.

A Sundy Jammer would have a similar "hands off" concept.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

Except, defense is allowed to park the Sunderer next to Capture point, correct? In hockey, are defense allowed to just block the goalpost all the time? Surely if the defense is allowed to park a Sundy to the capture point in PS2, then logically, and by rule of reciprocity, offense can be allowed as well.

The analogy doesn't quite work: defenders may be subject to different rules. In the sports analogy above, offense can be off-side, defense can not be since it's their side of the pitch. Hence defenders can spawn in the spawnbuilding, but the attacker cannot. Or, in PS1, defenders could use /b in their SOI, while attackers could not.

Yet, nobody was allowed to HART in within a SOI, to prevent bypassing of the defensive lines in order for defense to have a chance. You're better off describing why equal rules should be applied in this case, than that "it's natural". Remember, we wern't allowed to place vehicles at certain points near doors in PS1, due to potential blocking abuse.

Whoa, wait a second! Snipers are different from infiltrators!! I'm proposing removing it from long-ranged Snipers. Hence, if they have a Sniper rifle equipped, stealth is disabled. So if a regular short ranged weapon is equipped, then Infiltrators can still stealth. And oh, stealth has huge effect for infiltrators. That's why can they are mobile and can change location with impunity. There's way too much advantage and no downside at all.

Only downside is health (armour/hitpoints). Snipers did fine in PS1 without stealth. I've always been of the opinion it's too easy to have snipefils run around cloaked. Same for headshots being instant kills a lot leaving too little survivability to become situationally aware for a lot of people.

It would be great if it can substitute for the NDZ instead. It's a much better mechanic.

The PS2 Generator mechanic is the best example of "hands off" approach. It's all player vs. player interaction and gameplay. There's no Dev hands preventing players from doing anything, it's all player driven.

A Sundy Jammer would have a similar "hands off" concept.

Better but not perfect either. A valid strategic target, but should IMO just be tied to control of the capture point:

Not captured = can't place AMS due to interference range, but any that had already been placed remain functional.
Captured = can place AMS
Re-captured (by defense) = Massively reset capture progress (not just stop ticker or turn ticker around, defense needs more incentive and reward to regain control of points)

I dislike the "capture point area", manually hacking it is much more immersive, can be countered and provides some teamplay cover or stealth requirements, while providing a priority target to resecuring players (a way to control if a cap goes through.

I don't think people should be made aware of a capture attempt of a point or generator until it succeeds. These points however should be in the natural movement and defensive zones of defenders, so they discover this information themselves and by simply moving around, they already cover these areas of interest (rather than that they have to cross to the other side of the base to intervene). Information on what to do next, should IMO be provided to new players AFTER it happened.


Regardless, HART and Spawn beacons should not allow harting on top of buildings. I much rather deal with people who have to work their way up, than with people who drop behind you and get a free passage beyond your defensive line.

[Mordelicius]

Originally Posted by Figment

The analogy doesn't quite work: defenders may be subject to different rules. In the sports analogy above, offense can be off-side, defense can not be since it's their side of the pitch. Hence defenders can spawn in the spawnbuilding, but the attacker cannot. Or, in PS1, defenders could use /b in their SOI, while attackers could not.

Yet, nobody was allowed to HART in within a SOI, to prevent bypassing of the defensive lines in order for defense to have a chance. You're better off describing why equal rules should be applied in this case, than that "it's natural". Remember, we wern't allowed to place vehicles at certain points near doors in PS1, due to potential blocking abuse.

Their only official argument is the attacker spawn should be equidistant to the defender spawn with regards to the capture point. That falls flat in two logical areas:

- Attacker Sundy spawn is destructible and defender Spawn room is not (false equivalency).
- Defenders can drop a sundy spawn in a capture point while Attackers cannot (reciprocity).

The defenders have been parking Sundies next to the Capture point for about a year now since the NDZ. The very fact that the Developers don't find that imbalanced, is further proof that the attacker NDZ is moot and should be removed asap, or at the very least for the sake of testing/compromise, limit it to 10-20 feet and see if makes any difference at all. If not, simply remove it all.

Only downside is health (armour/hitpoints). Snipers did fine in PS1 without stealth. I've always been of the opinion it's too easy to have snipefils run around cloaked. Same for headshots being instant kills a lot leaving too little survivability to become situationally aware for a lot of people.

Then give the Snipers equivalent HP. That's a not a biggie at all as opposed to having stacked abilities that's in synergy with one another ( long range + stealth + one-hit = broken/OP combo abilities). What Snipers do is stealth, hide under covers, aim, unstealth, shoot for the head. Repeat.

Hence, the stealth ability for snipers ought to be removed.

Better but not perfect either. A valid strategic target, but should IMO just be tied to control of the capture point:

Not captured = can't place AMS due to interference range, but any that had already been placed remain functional.
Captured = can place AMS
Re-captured (by defense) = Massively reset capture progress (not just stop ticker or turn ticker around, defense needs more incentive and reward to regain control of points)

I dislike the "capture point area", manually hacking it is much more immersive, can be countered and provides some teamplay cover or stealth requirements, while providing a priority target to resecuring players (a way to control if a cap goes through.

I don't think people should be made aware of a capture attempt of a point or generator until it succeeds. These points however should be in the natural movement and defensive zones of defenders, so they discover this information themselves and by simply moving around, they already cover these areas of interest (rather than that they have to cross to the other side of the base to intervene). Information on what to do next, should IMO be provided to new players AFTER it happened.


Regardless, HART and Spawn beacons should not allow harting on top of buildings. I much rather deal with people who have to work their way up, than with people who drop behind you and get a free passage beyond your defensive line.

If you think you have a better mechanic, that's good. Make a new thread and perhaps the Developers will read or respond to it. But, I'm not arguing for perfection. I'm arguing for the developer "hands off" or "hands on" philosophy. I'm saying, in the current PS2 live build, the generator mechanic is the best example of a "hands off" approach where players interaction result in gameplay.

If I were to touch a generator to overload it. The enemy side has to shoot me or mine the area to stop it. If they want to fix the generator, I have to stop them as well.

The NDZ simply stops player from parking Sunderers. There's no player interaction or gameplay. That's the point I was trying to make. Their "hands on" approach is hurting PS2. They are simply not mindful of the implications.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

Their only official argument is the attacker spawn should be equidistant to the defender spawn with regards to the capture point. That falls flat in two logical areas:

- Attacker Sundy spawn is destructible and defender Spawn room is not (false equivalency).
- Defenders can drop a sundy spawn in a capture point while Attackers cannot (reciprocity).

Both your logic and SOE's logic is flawed.

The distance the defenders and attackers have to bridge should be proportional to the strength and capacity of either side. Since the attackers have the initiative, usualy have the firepower and the numbers, the distance and rather, the area, the defenders can realistically cover is much shorter. In fact, the attackers just need a breach, while the defenders need control.

The problem is that both you and SOE look at these groups as being equals. They are not. One of the groups bring combined arms to lock down a base, the other has nothing but infantry and maybe a few vehicles (that die within seconds).

The defenders have been parking Sundies next to the Capture point for about a year now since the NDZ. The very fact that the Developers don't find that imbalanced, is further proof that the attacker NDZ is moot and should be removed asap, or at the very least for the sake of testing/compromise, limit it to 10-20 feet and see if makes any difference at all. If not, simply remove it all.

This is a non-sequitor. Yes, the defenders have been parking them there, but the need for defenders is also greater. Your main complaint is that defenders can do something attackers can't. In a way you're right, but NOT in the way you think: neither side should be able to park it right at the CC! Why? Because the CC shouldn't actually be that close to the outside environment. It is simply too easy to dominate with vehicles.

But what I don't get is that you complain about Sunderers being able to get there, while it is far more problematic that Liberators and tanks can control the paths to the CC and lock it down.

If you think you have a better mechanic, that's good. Make a new thread and perhaps the Developers will read or respond to it. But, I'm not arguing for perfection. I'm arguing for the developer "hands off" or "hands on" philosophy. I'm saying, in the current PS2 live build, the generator mechanic is the best example of a "hands off" approach where players interaction result in gameplay.

If I were to touch a generator to overload it. The enemy side has to shoot me or mine the area to stop it. If they want to fix the generator, I have to stop them as well.

The NDZ simply stops player from parking Sunderers. There's no player interaction or gameplay. That's the point I was trying to make. Their "hands on" approach is hurting PS2. They are simply not mindful of the implications.

Whether it's hands on or off doesn't matter. What matters is whether the assignment they give to players is feasible for both sides. Both sides (attack and defense) MUST be able to perform these interactions.

It is for instance quite clear to me they didn't really know how to relate base size to defender numbers. The initial base size has been kept, despite tasking defenders with covering far too many approach routes, thanks primarily to the mere addition of a jetpack.

They designed bases and mechanics, assuming players could cover these things, without realising the amount of coordination and logistics required to do perform these tasks. The amount of defenders required to cover everything is simply too large and these populations are not available. Nor did they seem to have looked at the scenarios of what kind of strategies players would employ to win.

Given the designs and mechanics, camping the defenders was sometimes not only the easiest, but sometimes the only feasible way to win.

One of the problems with these base designs is the linear thought put into it, where oftentimes it is assumed attackers and defenders both start at point X and Y directly opposite to one another and will fight an equidistant distance to control points A, B and C. And maybe D, E and F. In reality, the vectors of attack vary constantly, while the vector of defense do not. Yet the bases were designed around defense against a single vector of assault and required concentrated defense to even hold that.

The same problem exists for counters. Counter-type warfare shouldn't require more numbers than the amount of units attacking. This goes in particular for air cover. It is far too easy to kill AA MAXes as a Liberator crew, to the point that I once killed 9 in two runs, while they never got us down to 20% health, simply because they had too many threats to deal with (both airborne and on the ground). They were dedicated to fight us, yet were made so much weaker than us it would take m a minute to kill us, while we could target ANYTHING on the ground and could kill in one shot or at most a few seconds.

They simply don't understand that dedicated platforms should be extremely strong because you can't afford to have many dedicated platforms in a combined arms game due to the sheer variety of targets while you can only use them against a narrow section of enemies, while jacks of all trades should be weak as you can afford to have many of these and can always use these in any given situation.

Too many players argue from a sense of entitlement, or worse, something I will call "convenient realism hypocrisy" (i.e. they argue something has to be "realistic" the moment it suits them, while they ignore this realism argument for everything else irrealistic that they're fine with). The only thing that matters is game balance, function and that it should result in a competitive environment where everyone stands a chance to perform the job they're assigned to do (ie. what the game mechanics and missions ask of them to create a "win", i.e. win at attack or defense, regardless of population).