Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

    We are locking our squads / platoons away from the public. I get that people want to play with friends and IHS's at times but we think back to BF 2142. Most TG squads were open to the public. (We also had somewhat working voip, but, still.) We need to keep our squads open unless we are specifically focusing on IHS play.

    Objectives. The last couple days I have been playing, TG squads have been fighting way off of the objectives. In fact, I looked at the map and we were in the complete middle of nowhere, in between 3 different zones and nowhere near anything that we could capture or defend. Why has this mentality changed since BF 2142? Fight on the objectives.

    I find it pitiful when I join a TAS platoon who is actively engaging enemies on objectives (attacking or defending) and then I come back over to a TG squad who is sitting on two towers outside of warp gate shooting at enemy planes that they'll never hit when we own the surrounding territories. WTF? Seriously.

  • #2
    Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

    Really it can be summed up quite simply, the game has been out a little over a week and we are all getting our bearings. We are still sorting out VOIP as best we can and it seems that once in game voip is stable enough we will switch to that for primary comms which will open the platoon up better for the pubbies to drop in and fight with us. Our squad leaders/platoon leaders are getting more comfortable but most are either still new to leading or new to planetside, give it time to settle down and the TG gameplay your used to will happen.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

      I agree with the public squads, but at the moment the issue is that in-game VOIP is broken, so only those in TS can communicate clearly. This means that opening to pubbies results in them getting left behind too often, or feeling left out, or just thinking that TG doesnt communicate at all. Better to wait til they can have a good experience with us than to gain a bad reputation unnecessarily.

      I understand what you mean on the objectives. This is a common frustration of mine. Granted, it is possible to go and be useful not on a cap point. For instance when we had an AA group on top of a mountain, we weren't at a cap point, but we were in between a critical outpost (the traverse) and a large base (the biolab) and were able to effectively lock down the airspace around both of them, which allowed others to be able to take the traverse, and hold the biolab. So yes you can be effective off the cap point. Thats not the only way. For instance, choke pointing a mountain pass with mines and AT, setting up an ambush. I havent seen us do that yet, but it doesnt sound like a bad plan to me.

      I DO see where you are coming from, and agree that sometimes it can be a bit much, as with the warpgate towers. But not necessarily is it always bad thing if you arent right on a cap point.

      Later that night I took over the platoon for the first time and experimented with Air Cavalry tactics. Spent a good hour or two gal dropping on a target, taking the point, immediately loading up in the gals again and moving on to the next sector. My leadership, planning, communication, and the execution of the plan as a whole was not perfect by any means, (I plan to make a post later about how we could improve as a group) but it actually did work fairly well. We capped a lot of sectors in a good time span. I honestly had a lot of fun doing it. That's an example of one time we stuck to cap points strictly and it worked for us.

      Part of the issue is the attack/defense argument. Some people say its dumb to attack points and just move on, so we need to spend most of our time defending what we already have. Some say its dumb/boring to do nothing but defend when we could be using our platoon to make the difference with strategic assaults. There isnt a right/wrong answer here, it is just a matter of opinion and favorite play styles. I honestly see merits and flaws in both usages of the platoon, so IMO it is best to do a mix of the two. Had I been platoon lead longer, I probably would have had us do some defense as well, although not for hours at a time.
      May you be covered in the dust of your Rabbi.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

        A problem with PS2 is that as a group of 15 people there is only two things you can do. You can either join the zerg, or do small scale operations like take undefended bases or set up an AA position. We cant assault or defend a large base on our own. That is just not going to happen, and it feels like people haven't really completely realized this yet. When we join a zerg attacking or defending a major base, the only difference between our group and 15 random solo players joining the zerg, is that we're talking to eachother on TS. Its just 15 more bodies on the objective, and we're not contributing in any major way to the fight by being organized.

        I feel that we should let the big outfits, that can muster 100 man groups easily, worry about these largescale attack and defense operations, and instead figure out where we can make the biggest difference with what we've got. Might even be worth starting a new thread to brainstorm what exactly we can do with our small group, because so far I cant really come up with very many options.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

          Thing is with open squads you get more numbers.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

            Which is great and all, but as mentioned above, doesn't work when voip isn't working.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

              Once we get VOIP working, I anticipate being able to get a full platoon on any given night, if we manage it correctly. A full platoon WILL have some weight, not just a part of the zerg. In the meantime I do have some ideas on how to maximize our effectiveness as a small unit, and I am sure I'm not the only one, so maybe a thread would be a good idea.
              May you be covered in the dust of your Rabbi.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

                Originally posted by Feriluce View Post
                A problem with PS2 is that as a group of 15 people there is only two things you can do. You can either join the zerg, or do small scale operations like take undefended bases or set up an AA position. We cant assault or defend a large base on our own. That is just not going to happen, and it feels like people haven't really completely realized this yet. When we join a zerg attacking or defending a major base, the only difference between our group and 15 random solo players joining the zerg, is that we're talking to eachother on TS. Its just 15 more bodies on the objective, and we're not contributing in any major way to the fight by being organized.

                I feel that we should let the big outfits, that can muster 100 man groups easily, worry about these largescale attack and defense operations, and instead figure out where we can make the biggest difference with what we've got. Might even be worth starting a new thread to brainstorm what exactly we can do with our small group, because so far I cant really come up with very many options.

                I disagree. Joining the zerg is probably one of the best things we can do. The zerg is going to have people spread out all over the place. We, as a focused squad, can assist in taking the large objectives by holding objectives within the large objective.

                Biolab for example - Our squad of 6-12 people could be in charge of holding A, B or C. We could attack the generator. We could hold one of the teleportation points outside of the biolab and keep a sunder repaired there.

                There are many things that a smaller squad can accomplish that contributes to the large objectives.

                As a smaller squad, we are more versatile. We can join the zerg or we can assault smaller undefended camps that surround a big objective that the zerg is taking. That increases our reputation with the large objective and lets the zerg cap that point faster.

                If anything, smaller squads have more options to be effective versus less effective.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

                  On the attack or defend argument, sometimes we DO need to defend. Keep in mind though - the rewards for attacking are FAR greater than the rewards for defending. You gain more experience, cert points, and resources to trade bases all day than you do by defending one base.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

                    I do think it can be useful to use the zerg sometimes. For instance, if your team is zerging an amp station, you can be a great asset if you do a coordinated light assault attack over the walls and take down the generators. That way we arent really joining the zerg, but instead using the zerg.
                    May you be covered in the dust of your Rabbi.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

                      I am seldom in the cap radius.

                      I am most often found behind the front line or between defended sectors, patrolling with my AMMO/AMS Sunderer, resupplying tanks at the front line, repairing (when the driver is smart enough to back out of enemy fire to a safe spot).

                      The notion that to be effective one must be inside the radius or otherwise directly engaged with the objective overlooks the fact that a battlefield in PS2 is a combination of many elements; attack, defense, supply lines, and reinforcements, to name a few.

                      There is an irrationality to the average style of game play (which is fine, as no one says that play must be conducted rationally). When you apply a different logic to the game all sorts of possibilities open up.

                      Most do not care to be removed from the heat of the battle. This is understandable. Yet the claim that there is only two options, two approaches, or one goal is misguided (and has been voiced across many such gaming environments).

                      The very presence of a Zerg opens up alternative possibilities across the map, as a Zerg often implies that the rest of the map is underpopulated and thus ripe for taking secondary objectives, routing around the enemy, and even cutting them off.

                      There is a role for the massed army, the small squad, and even the 'lone wolf' in this environment, and challenges as complex as one wishes to make, if one is willing to metagame the game.

                      For example:

                      Properly anticipating the collapse of a friendly front line and the lose of a region, retreating to take up the fight elsewhere, and doing so without dying. Most players do not do this. They simply throw themselves against an overwhelming force until complete defeat. Nothing wrong with that -- it is only a game.

                      But it is not the game I play.

                      Now why is the server down just when the wife is out for the evening!
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

                        Originally posted by E-Male View Post
                        For example:

                        Properly anticipating the collapse of a friendly front line and the lose of a region, retreating to take up the fight elsewhere, and doing so without dying. Most players do not do this. They simply throw themselves against an overwhelming force until complete defeat. Nothing wrong with that -- it is only a game.

                        But it is not the game I play.

                        Now why is the server down just when the wife is out for the evening!
                        I certainly agree. Retreat is always an option and a retreating force on foot (instead of redeploying) provides a good buffer against an incoming counter-attack. However, its all about the situation and luck.

                        Yesterday our six man group got caught in the open by a Mag-Rider I was all that survived (yay active camo). I retreated on foot behind enemy lines as a massive attack sought to overtake our nearby BioLab. Despite having to travel at least one kilo in the open smack dab in the middle of the Enemies' Line Of Communication I was able to make my way to a small outpost they had left largely undefended and regrouped with Orbital & SirHobbit from our platoon's first squad. We were inches away from taking the small outpost and securing a spawn point but then the Vanu took the territory to the north eliminating all influence.

                        I don't know but I think we miss out on a good deal of experiences by just running into death so we can respawn easy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

                          Originally posted by Ytman View Post

                          I don't know but I think we miss out on a good deal of experiences by just running into death so we can respawn easy.
                          This is certainly true. It is all a matter of what type of experiences, what self-imposed rules (SOPs) may be in play, and what type of game one prefers.

                          Much can be learned from dying.

                          Much can also be learned from forcing the enemy to do the dying!
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

                            Personally, I would love to see us attacking the out lying bases/territories surrounding the bio-domes or tech plants instead of joining in on the massive tard rush. My fps is terrible in those battles, cant stay alive for more then a minute to actually find my SL and carry out his orders. Why not send 1 or 2 squads to their own outer territory instead of the whole platoon hitting the main facility.

                            Less chaos, more chance for success, and we are able to see a direct impact our efforts are having.
                            |TG-6th|CorpDuty

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Some issues I am seeing (and a rant)

                              Originally posted by Tllyx View Post
                              On the attack or defend argument, sometimes we DO need to defend. Keep in mind though - the rewards for attacking are FAR greater than the rewards for defending. You gain more experience, cert points, and resources to trade bases all day than you do by defending one base.
                              I'm sorry but I disagree, if not equal, i feel defending is more enjoyable. I enjoy the feeling of knowing I just defended the position that had TONS of enemy armor, infantry, and air headed straight for it, and we stopped the war machine in its tracks.

                              all opinion to a degree i guess XD


                              I agree with corp
                              |TG-Irr| di1lweed1212

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X