Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta game

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

  • [VIDEO] Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta game

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYq-WdzQoao
    sigpic


  • #2
    Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

    this is great, i agree with alot of what he said
    |TG-Irr| di1lweed1212

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

      Definitely made some solid points. I really agree that the game is not intended for small unit tactics or defensive play. He also hit the nail on the head with resources, they are way over inflated and pointless in its current construct. Only ding would be only pointing out the obvious, without offering a whole lot of solutions.
      "The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws." -Machiavelli

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

        Resources break the game balance.

        However, I will argue that small unit tactics do work in this game and its about being where you are needed. Our small TG unit went and preempted a biolab strategically taking out its SCU and placing AMS sunderers ahead of the main fighting force before the base was contestable.

        Small unit tactics need to be in the scale of small battles and focus on smaller specific tactical objectives. They never worry about the strategy of the battlefield.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

          Speaking of resources has anybody really run out of resources? I never run out. The main component of the game that prevents me from pulling amor etc., is the cool down timer. I am seriously wondering if resources have any impact on the game whatsoever.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

            Originally posted by QuantumQrack View Post
            Speaking of resources has anybody really run out of resources? I never run out. The main component of the game that prevents me from pulling amor etc., is the cool down timer. I am seriously wondering if resources have any impact on the game whatsoever.
            I do.... but that's only because I suck with vehicles :D
            May you be covered in the dust of your Rabbi.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

              Originally posted by QuantumQrack View Post
              Speaking of resources has anybody really run out of resources? I never run out. The main component of the game that prevents me from pulling amor etc., is the cool down timer. I am seriously wondering if resources have any impact on the game whatsoever.
              Only when I'm refilling my C4 stock.. which I really don't have to do because it auto refills it one at a time when I'm out. But it costs 100 points per brick, so just refill it (I think) 7 times and you run out of infantry points. I did that one time and then I wasn't able to use my jump jets. I thought it was just a bug at first, and then I thought about it more. I wonder if jump jets use or rely on the infantry points or something..?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

                Originally posted by SuperDudeBT View Post
                I wonder if jump jets use or rely on the infantry points or something..?
                It shouldn't. Sounds like a bug.

                The only times I've run out of vehicle points has been when defending a continent advantage where we have lost almost all our territory. (and pulling solely tanks) This is an issue that Hamma touched on and something that's been really bothering me as well.

                It encourages players to pull out of a continent where we are losing ground. Players who prefer to play air, armor, MAX or even infantry that rely heavily on consumables know that they only have to switch back to a mostly-conquered continent in order to continue in their preferred playstyle. The obvious solution would seem to be dividing resource gain by 3 and adding the resources from all continents. SOE has stated that they don't want to do this because it will make problems when they begin to add more continents. (Well, find a better solution then!)

                The experience bonuses could help with this too, but the XP bonus is given to a faction based on the server population, not the continent population. The intent of the bonus was to provide a boost to outnumbered opponents, but it doesn't pan out that way. The TR could have 60% of the population on Esamir, but still be getting a 3% xp bonus because overall the NC and VS have more players online. Switch it to a continent-based system and you'll see players rush to defend a continent that is being swarmed rather than look for happy hunting grounds elsewhere.
                Teamwork and Tactics are OP


                Strait /strāt/ (Noun) A narrow passage of water connecting two seas or two large areas of water: "the Northumberland Strait".

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

                  I usually keep my AT mines topped off at 40, so I'm always running out of infantry resources, to keep it full.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

                    I run out of resources when I pull a sundy and lose it in short order. That's it. Between my Lightning, Vanny and infantry work the only thing that stops me is the timer. And probably only because I haven't dumped a lot of certs into lowering the cooldown. Which makes me wonder if the supplies will be felt more when people have maxed out cooldown.

                    As to his points, most are pretty well worn. Though I laughed when he said that caps need to be longer as BCP has expressed his opinion they need to be shorter. But the rest of it, yeah, I've seen it all and groused about it here and elsewhere.

                    The one new piece of information was that SOE is looking at eSport aspects of PS2. Seriously? eSports are the purview of small teams of similar, if not identical, size. Does anything about that describe any aspect of Planetside? Nope. If they are taking into consideration any aspect of eSport then they are doing it wrong. ANet nailed it when they split off sPvP from WvW. They flat out said that they are going to balance sPvP and WvW is not, nor will it ever be, balanced. sPvP is their focus for eSport. WvW, while they will tweak it, they fully acknowledge that it isn't supposed to be fair. It's war. He who brings the best toys and the most soldiers stands a darn good change of winning. That's what PS2 should be around. Creating a dynamic battlefield, 1v1 balance be damned.
                    "...the rules aren't there to enumerate what is always correct but what is always wrong..."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

                      Yeah the Esports idea is fail, Esports bring the cheapness, kill the immersion and cause artificial balancing. Hopefully they have a brainwave if they must pursue that avenue and restrict it to dedicated E-Sports servers. I have no interest in it at all.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

                        Not a bad video and totally agree about the lameness that E-Sports could bring to PS2. I really hope they don't go in that direction.
                        Home/Gaming PC: [email protected]/Asus Rog Maximus VIII Formula/EVGA GTX 1080 SC/Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2x8GB)/Corsair Carbide Quiet 600Q/Corsair RM750i/Acer XB270H 27"/BenQ G2400W 24"/Sound BVlaster ZX/Samsung 850 Pro SSDs x2/Samsung 950 Pro x1/Win10 Pro 64bit/Saitek X52/TrackIR3: Pro-TrackClip Pro/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

                          I've actually played with Malorn quite a few times, and I have the utmost confidence that he will help bring some of the serious changes that are required. From my perspective, there are a few things that could greatly be modified and if not 'fix' then greatly reduce the number of problems we have. I'll start with what I perceive to be the biggest problem.

                          I. Whack-a-Mole
                          Make influence matter more. Do not let one person flip caps. The only thing one person should be able to do is infiltrate a base. Make the ability to capture an influence-affected dynamic that is also affected in some form or fashion by population in the area. For example, I do not see it as unreasonable that a single man should be able to capture a flag in a base where his faction already has, let's say, 75% influence. But take that number to 50%, or 45%, or 10% influence and it's unreasonable to assume that one person should be allowed to flip that cap. Too many times I see 5 flashing regions and I look at the heat map and it's just one person. No activity in 4/5 of the regions and the 5th is just "Enemies Detected". Influence should dictate the number of people required to a.) flip the cap in the first place b.) required to hold the cap. I don't have any numbers in mind necessarily, but I feel that capture points should be locked until, say, 3 people are on the CZ for the 6/6 caps and it should require that 2/2 be on the CZ for it to unlock for 2/2 CPs.

                          Also, during beta, the feature was that if you did not REMAIN on the capture point, the cap would flip back to the holding faction. This should be reimplemented immediately. A feature like that required enemies to remain near the capture zone so they simply COULDN'T whack-a-mole. If the holding faction has 50% or greater influence in the area, make the cap flip back to the holding faction's control in 30 seconds of unoccupied CZ. If less than 50%, make it 2 minutes or something. It seems a band-aid for a larger issue, but at least it's something: the ghostcappers would have to remain exposed on the CZ if they intended to capture it. For a region like The Bastion, this would allow a group of 2 ghostcappers to not take it alone. They could unlock one CP, but when they move to the next, the CP will have started to flip back to the holding faction. It would require a force of at least 6 to capture an area like The Bastion, Howling Pass Checkpoint, Searro LP, and a few others that are tactically advantageous.

                          Likewise, implementing a 5 minute base lock would be extremely beneficial. For 5 minutes, the base is NOT able to be captured regardless of influence. If you lose a region, tough luck for at least 5 minutes -- you should have put up a better fight. This also allows the attackers to regain their foothold and put up a new defence without the tug-of-war hitting them back in the face the moment they capture. I've met some pretty strong opponents to this, but I think it'd be beneficial. It allows the previous defenders to set up a new attack/defence in a different location, and it allows the previous attackers to start setting up defensive positions around the region to make sure it is held. I do not see the baselock as nearly as important as the other features, but I think it would help especially if used in conjunction with the other ideas above.

                          Lastly, remove immediately the ability to capture while in a vehicle. Period. There is no reason this should even be in the game, yet I see Mags capturing 2/6 all the time.

                          II. Base Construction
                          Amerish did it well. Bases are difficult to siege for the most part. There are some obvious exceptions to this, but by and large they are more difficult to siege than Esamir or Indar's bases. This is, in part, to a new designer on the base construction from my understanding. The fix for this is super-duper simple: make bases look like bases and function like bases. They should be defendable, secure, and have few exposed areas. Every base should have weaknesses (air, ground, or infantry) but every base should not suffer from weaknesses on all fronts. Splitpeak Pass comes to mind. GOON tank zerg was able to take Splitpeak Pass from a superior force of infantry just because they brought 30 Vanguards and lightnings. Why? It makes no sense. Infantry should have the obvious advantage in that area by all accounts, with the weakness against air units.

                          Some of Esamir's bases started implementing this. There are little hidden passages that infantry can sneak into and start causing havoc. Redesign bases to have more of those weaknesses/strengths. I feel that every base should have 1/3 weaknesses and 2/3 strengths. Raven Landing/The Ascent are perfect examples. You're only getting there by air. It's the only way. So units at Raven Landing/The Ascent know what to expect if they're going to put up a defence: they need to protect against infantry and air because tanks are not a threat.

                          And how about multiple, random spawn rooms to each base? I'm so tired of having my spawn room surrounded and it's the only way to get out. It's poor game design. Set up multiple spawn rooms, with particular attention to three-cap bases such as Saerro LP and The Bastion. There's no reason that multiple platoons should be so bottlenecked in a base because they can only exit out of an area small enough to take splash-damage from one Liberator.

                          III. ESMBT Zerg.
                          Tanks are simply too easy to get and the positions in which they are pulled are too close to serious conflict. Amerish does a great job of making the tank zerg more difficult, but if you play Amerish for any period of time, you know it's definitely done. I don't have a fix for it, except maybe reducing the availability of ESMBT spawns throughout all continents. Make them more common near warpgates and less common as you push out. Make ESMBT spawns a tactically-advantageous point to hold. As it stands, tanks are too available and too commonplace. They should have to work to get where they are, not spawn 30 MBTs at Crimson Bluff and be able to take Howling Pass in 2 minutes as an example.

                          The obvious fix here ties into point II. If bases were designed better, tanks effectiveness would be reduced to siege warfare and open-ground conflict which is how it ought to be, not camping spawn-rooms in close proximity.

                          IV. The Resource Game
                          Too often my faction is being dominated and I cannot pull vital vehicles because of a lack of resources. The obvious solution is to switch continents and go somewhere that I am able to get resources. I do not have a solution, or an idea for a solution here. Resource denial needs to be more tangible. I think the further from the warpgate you go, the less the resources should be available. It would require a great deal of logistics to keep an armoured division intact if they had to actually travel instead of suicide-spawning to an advantageous spawn room.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

                            I agree with Fuzzy on all accounts.

                            Potential solutions imply significant changes to the core gameplay and overall strategic-meta game.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Raises some good points that have been talked about in server a few times. Meta g

                              Sadly, as the game stands in its current state, the end-game (pun intended) is a vapourware-in-a-year title that ends up inflating prices for SC to account for all the player drops.

                              The game begs for ultrafits to be the norm. Ultimately, it doesn't matter right now how stalwart a defence you put up because your 12-man squad will get steamrolled every single time by that enemy platoon that just showed up with their 20 ESMBTs and Sunderers. Attackers are always at a blatant disadvantage regardless of the game or situation, but the inability for an attacker to have any sort of sustainable assault beyond one or two sunderers against a larger defending or larger QRF group is unacceptable. Period. I think that's a large reason we DO see so much tank spam honestly. Attackers have to use force multipliers since they have almost no cover/concealed routes to take 80% of the time, nor do they have the ability to sustain a relatively large push for extended periods of time due to poor game mechanics, so they switch to blitzkrieg tactics... and it works.

                              Why are there not "mini-bases" that offer no resource advantage, but owning them/occupying them gives you access to nothing more than an advantageous position on a base? Why is it always just emptiness when heading to the next CP? Why not put these miniature bases in different areas in a region and treat them like the CPs in BLs/TPs/ASs? Now, not only is it an advantageous defensive position, but it has a degree of tactical depth since the enemy can overcommit to a fight and be flanked by new spawns. (Think Highroads station and that small building on the hill next to the CZ. Or Xelas Bio Lab with that CP/generator up high in the hills. Both are exceptionally well-placed and should be fiercely fought over, but they aren't because there is no reward in so doing.)

                              It's a numbers game, and if you want to be the winner, you better have big numbers -- at least 80 people on constantly to make any sort of a dent in the enemy. PS2 in its current form does not reward skill, strategy, nor innovation, but it certainly rewards zerging. Small defence bonus in comparison to the huge 1100 XP gain for a base capture? Zerg Creation Foundations 101.

                              Unless serious changes to the meta happen soon, this game isn't going to last as long as any of us want it to, or that it has the potential to. Sad stuff.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X