Huge Outfits and PlanetSide 2

[Brusi]

We need alliance functionality

[Hmr85]

Originally Posted by MuNrOe

Wow guys seriously when did this degenerate into name calling and bigotry. Chill the fuck out. Focus on suggesting elements to the game to make it more playable for smaller outfits.

Base design that sorta thing.

Leave the name calling and school yard stuff in the gutter where it belongs. That stuff belongs on the official PS2 forums with the rest of the sess pit filled junk that goes in there.

Almost everyone here is a PS1 vet and we should be working together to fix these issues not doing our best to put each other down. Its up to us to bring back the potential in PS2 that was found in PS1 that we all know can be achieved. But it wont be unless we work together.

QFT,

And well said.

[Babyfark McGeez]

I think it's just a logical progression of the flawed game design:

- Main goal of the game is farming XP/Certs
- Attacking is more rewarding then defending (Due to guaranteed XP when attacking, base design, territory being irrelevant etc.)
- The more people you have, the easier attacking becomes

Result = Huge outfits that can farm XP/Certs more easy

Aside from the problems with defending and territory relevance the underlying problem is the basic concept of individual player progression being THE main goal of the game.

Atleast that's my opinion.

[Dkamanus]

Yes, only with higher defensability in bases that smaller outfits will shine more. The example is the Crown. Very easy to defend, hard to take, but not impossible as some people claim, needing a multiple approach of forces to get it much easier or a lack of defense in the part of the defenders.

That northern approach is a murder against infantry if you know where to stay.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Now that i have watched hammas video i would like to say "Good Job"! A must-watch for the devs imo.

You summed up the general problems of the game very good, and even though i'm not playing in an outfit right now solving the issues you mentioned would benefit me in solo play aswell. It's a very good "big picture" you painted there.

I want to comment on three points in particular:

1)
You mentioned the base designs and how they need serious redesigning. I wholeheartly agree there (heck, we have been discussing this for ages on here).
BUT now knowing that the forgelight engine is not able to create "cuts" into the terrain (seriously, WTF???) i can see how the devs will try to avoid any "underground bases". It also makes you question in what "stage" of development this engine actually is, but that's another topic.

So here is me hoping that the devs will either fix the engine quickly or say "screw this" and work on proper base design within the limits (Which means making huge canyons in the terrain to fit an underground base "mesh" inside and cleaning up everything around).

2)
"Ghostcapping" by single soldiers.

I think the solution to this problem lies within the (non-existant) "RTS" part. Currently there are barely any fortification options for the defenders. For example in PS1 a proper empty base had atleast a dozen mines, turrets and motion detectors around. That not only slowed attackers down (or even discouraged a single attacker to the point he left) but also alerted the defender(s) more visibly.
In PS2 i never even ran onto a proximity mine at a cap point in an empty base, let alone turrets, barricades or any other form of playermade "defense layer". If a base does not have an enemy player in it, it is defenseless.

Providing us with actual fortification options would make single-player-capping less easy and inviting.

3)
Unrewarding defense.

Let's take a look at a big base here for example: Successfully assaulting one means you net a guaranteed 1000 xp.
That equals to ~7 kills as a defender (7x150 = 1050).
BUT there is no guarantee at all you will kill 7 people (or doing equally rewarding things) while defending. Even if you successfully defend a facility you could end up not getting a single xp from it.
Additonally it's not easy enough to tell where and when you should defend a base, so even if you want to defend you might end up standing around for nothing.
And since the underlying problem of the whole game is imho the focus on player-progression people think about what will give them the most xp in the shortest amount of time and go with that. That then culmulates in players herding in big zergs (makes getting xp more easy) and these zergs only being on offense (gives you guaranteed xp).

The solution would be to give a static reward for defending aswell, or to remove the static reward for capturing (drastic, i know).

Overall i really hope the devs are looking into this thread, because afterall the potential of PS2 is still there.

[Sledgecrushr]

I think a huge dose of vagisil would help you guys.

[Whiteagle]

Clearly this thread needs more...

Originally Posted by Babyfark McGeez

1)
You mentioned the base designs and how they need serious redesigning. I wholeheartly agree there (heck, we have been discussing this for ages on here).
BUT now knowing that the forgelight engine is not able to create "cuts" into the terrain (seriously, WTF???) i can see how the devs will try to avoid any "underground bases". It also makes you question in what "stage" of development this engine actually is, but that's another topic.

So here is me hoping that the devs will either fix the engine quickly or say "screw this" and work on proper base design within the limits (Which means making huge canyons in the terrain to fit an underground base "mesh" inside and cleaning up everything around).

Well I don't think they are going to "fix" it, as I have a sneaking suspicion that an unbroken terrain mesh is required for a continuous intercontinental setup...

Second Life used something similar and, since I'd rather have true intercontinental warfare then "underground" bases that would take weeks of development time apiece, I'm hoping they will create some new building assets so the map designers can build proper military installations.

...Had it up to here with prefab shacks...

Originally Posted by Babyfark McGeez

2)
"Ghostcapping" by single soldiers.

I think the solution to this problem lies within the (non-existant) "RTS" part. Currently there are barely any fortification options for the defenders. For example in PS1 a proper empty base had atleast a dozen mines, turrets and motion detectors around. That not only slowed attackers down (or even discouraged a single attacker to the point he left) but also alerted the defender(s) more visibly.
In PS2 i never even ran onto a proximity mine at a cap point in an empty base, let alone turrets, barricades or any other form of playermade "defense layer". If a base does not have an enemy player in it, it is defenseless.

Providing us with actual fortification options would make single-player-capping less easy and inviting.

Indeed, Planetside 2 relies WAY too much on "active" defense.
As a Second Life Military Vet, I know such a defensive scheme requires a constaint stream of attackers in order to be entertaining, and that STILL get old rather quickly.

I know the developers have a thing against computer controled opposition, but could we get a confermation they are dead set against auto-turrets of any kind?

At the very least better detection deployables would go a long way...

Originally Posted by Babyfark McGeez

3)
Unrewarding defense.

Let's take a look at a big base here for example: Successfully assaulting one means you net a guaranteed 1000 xp.
That equals to ~7 kills as a defender (7x150 = 1050).
BUT there is no guarantee at all you will kill 7 people (or doing equally rewarding things) while defending. Even if you successfully defend a facility you could end up not getting a single xp from it.
Additonally it's not easy enough to tell where and when you should defend a base, so even if you want to defend you might end up standing around for nothing.
And since the underlying problem of the whole game is imho the focus on player-progression people think about what will give them the most xp in the shortest amount of time and go with that. That then culmulates in players herding in big zergs (makes getting xp more easy) and these zergs only being on offense (gives you guaranteed xp).

The solution would be to give a static reward for defending aswell, or to remove the static reward for capturing (drastic, i know).

Personally, I think 40% of the capture bonus would be a good starting point...

[EVILPIG]

Clearly my post is in response to Hamma's blanket statement that all "1600" member outfits are "garbage". Not suprising to see the responses to it.

[Electrofreak]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Clearly my post is in response to Hamma's blanket statement that all "1600" member outfits are "garbage". Not suprising to see the responses to it.

That's not exactly what he said. 10 days ago he said, "These 1600 player outfits are garbage and ruin the game."


Hamma has NOT made any attacks on any specific outfit and has gone to lengths to try to remove any such attacks from this thread. His issue is with zerg outfits, so stop being so defensive EP, as it implies the 666th is a zerg outfit. If it's not, you have nothing to be offended about.

The reality is that in-game right now, empires are flooding to the continent that their empire has the highest population on, and zerg outfits are largely to blame. When a single outfit can tell a significant percentage of the server's players on one faction to go to a specific continent, it tips the scales on empire balance on that continent. Of course, everyone then rushes to that continent for all the easy XP.

It's a valid complaint. So read between the lines EP; Hamma isn't insulting your outfit. He's pointing out a serious flaw in the game which I'm sure you've noticed too. There's room for large outfits and small outfits alike in PS2 (Hamma even said just that in his recent video blog) but there needs to be more incentive for small outfits in the game beside just following the large outfits around the map.

I'm sure the 666th doesn't enjoy steamrolling relatively undefended continents either, and I would expect you to have some valuable feedback on this subject.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

That's not exactly what he said. 10 days ago he said, "These 1600 player outfits are garbage and ruin the game."

https://twitter.com/CDLHamma/status/281632392572194816

Hamma has NOT made any attacks on any specific outfit and has gone to lengths to try to remove any such attacks from this thread. His issue is with zerg outfits, so stop being so defensive EP, as it implies the 666th is a zerg outfit. If it's not, you have nothing to be offended about.

The reality is that in-game right now, empires are flooding to the continent that their empire has the highest population on, and zerg outfits are largely to blame. When a single outfit can tell a significant percentage of the server's players on one faction to go to a specific continent, it tips the scales on empire balance on that continent. Of course, everyone then rushes to that continent for all the easy XP.

It's a valid complaint. So read between the lines EP; Hamma isn't insulting your outfit. He's pointing out a serious flaw in the game which I'm sure you've noticed too. There's room for large outfits and small outfits alike in PS2 (Hamma even said just that in his recent video blog) but there needs to be more incentive for small outfits in the game beside just following the large outfits around the map.

I'm sure the 666th doesn't enjoy steamrolling relatively undefended continents either, and I would expect you to have some valuable feedback on this subject.

As I said, it is a blanket statement that includes us. Being organized and coordinated, this offended me.

[Electrofreak]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

As I said, it is a blanket statement that includes us. Being organized and coordinated, this offended me.

And your response completely missed the point. I'm sorry to see that you're hung up on something said 10 days ago and completely ignoring the context in which it was used.

Wake up man, that's not what this is about. I think you're more worried about being offended at the statement than actually paying attention to what Hamma was talking about when he said it.

[Blynd]

If hamma had mentioned a specific outfit then you would have grounds to be offended unless your admitting that the 666th are a zergfit and thenyes it would be aimed at you but from your previous posts and posts of other 666th members all saying your organized and coordinated and not a zergfit so you have to decide EP are you a zergfit or not

[Fear The Amish]

Wow i think Evil Pig is defensive for a reason let me point something out. I am assuming that DD works like the other big outfits, you spread out squads to take multiple territories. BUT! when you hit resistance you throw multiple squads, and if that doesn't work everyone at it? Guess what you just became a zergfit you just used OVERWHELMING numbers to cap a point. Doesn't matter how many flanks you turned or how many gal drops you used or max crashes. It boils down to one thing you used your superior numbers to take out a position. Now you have two options here 1.) Feel offended and whiney about it. or 2.) realize you are the strongest unit's in the game able to change the course of a fight on your word, and MAN UP and use that ability to stop fighting on one continent.

But back on topic i would love an alliance system like EVE currently you have to work outside the game to do it. The VA on Waterson tries to break Esamir/amerish every night but 2-3 platoons can't stand against a 50+% pop when those 2-3 platoons only shift it from 5-10%. Also would love to see more bases like Amerish and easier to defend, And to Malorn Jeagers Fist and the others you designed are perfect we need more of that.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Originally Posted by Brusi

We need alliance functionality

so the smaller outfits can still do their niche roles within the framework of a zergfit?

Sounds good to me.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

so the smaller outfits can still do their niche roles within the framework of a zergfit?

Sounds good to me.

Sounds like a contradiction in terms.

TBH I think evilpig is barking at nothing and it's not helpful to the discussion at hand.

e.g. I see the problems in the game, but neither DD nor enclave nor AT nor GOTR nor any other v. large outfit play on my server.

The discussion long ago passed on from 'large outfits' to what is the role of so called smaller outfits, i.e. tactical within the strategic.