Concern about base capture mechanics

[FuzzyandBlue]

I watched Higby's stream earlier today and had a concern about base capture. Everything we have seen in the footage that we have is that once a base is captured falls fully under the capturing factions control. But within a minute or so someone hacks a terminal and everyone starts fighting over the exact same base.

A concern that I have seen pop up several times is that front lines will never change. Usually this concern centers around footholds, but as I see it bases being instantly open for hacking will lend to never moving front lines than footholds will.

My solution would be to add a temporary lock to a captured base, 30 mins as an example, It would whoever owned the base after the battle to clean up the remnants of the enemy and organize an attack on another base.

I don't know if there is any information about my question but if anyone has any more info I'd love to know.

[Yutty]

30 mins seems bit too long. I'd think a 2 min lock would be ok

[Rivenshield]

I hadn't even thought of that.

OP raises a salient point. And he has a good idea.

[SFJake]

I think it would be wiser to find ways to make it harder instead of just making it literally impossible. Removing possibilities completely isn't an ideal solution in my mind, -if- this is a problem.

[p0intman]

keep this in mind: when a base is captured in PS1, it is immediately contestable by anyone who has a valid link to the base. Weather or not they will hold it through the hack or not, however, is entirely decided by the firepower left inside the base. So in theory, all the capturing team would need to do is reassault the capture points and resecure them to clean the base up.

[FuzzyandBlue]

keep this in mind: when a base is captured in PS1, it is immediately contestable by anyone who has a valid link to the base. Weather or not they will hold it through the hack or not, however, is entirely decided by the firepower left inside the base. So in theory, all the capturing team would need to do is reassault the capture points and resecure them to clean the base up.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there just one hack point and a tower per base in PS1?
Zurvan amp station has 6 hack points, in fact I think every base we have seen since E3 has had 6 points. All one has to do is hack one point and the whole battle will start again.

I never played PS1 myself but have watched several streams and videos. One thing I never saw was a base being contested over and over again. I usually saw the victors regroup and attack. While the losers would fall back to their next base and try to defend or attack a different point.

[SpcFarlen]

I dont really think adding a longer timer helps get rid of stagnant front line combat. If capture times are larger it means a larger force is needed to attack and secure. So taking a galaxy, doing a drop behind lines then becomes more limited because their odds of taking a base and repelling attack for 30 minutes becomes much much harder. So in a way that would facilitate frontline combat since there isnt the risk of getting a counter attack from all sides within that time frame.

[p0intman]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there just one hack point and a tower per base in PS1?
Zurvan amp station has 6 hack points, in fact I think every base we have seen since E3 has had 6 points. All one has to do is hack one point and the whole battle will start again.

I never played PS1 myself but have watched several streams and videos. One thing I never saw was a base being contested over and over again. I usually saw the victors regroup and attack. While the losers would fall back to their next base and try to defend or attack a different point.

Granted, though I'm pretty sure if you resecure just that one point then its fine. You'll have to definitely test that in beta. It affects things I'm concerned about quite a bit.

[Sabot]

To me it seems that spawn points in bases are actually pretty far from the other caputure points, so it's just up to whoever owns the base to clean up properly...

[SgtMAD]

I liked the base capture/defend system I saw,it looked like it was a shitload of fun to play

[MCYRook]

My solution would be to add a temporary lock to a captured base, 30 mins as an example, It would whoever owned the base after the battle to clean up the remnants of the enemy and organize an attack on another base.
The cleaning up has more to do with eliminating spawn points than with the control points. If an empire has just capped/defended a base, that typically means they already hold the majority of the cap points. So what if an opposing empire sits on one CP still and re-hacks it right away - they're not gonna take the base off of that. And if you eliminate their spawns, they won't be able to reinforce.

On the other hand, if CPs were locked for some duration after a battle, but the opponents still have Galaxies and whatnot around, PS1 experience says they WILL still stay and fight there, even if they cannot even hack the base.

So I share the concern that battle flow in PS2 might be somewhat static, but I don't think the issue lies with the bases being contestable at any time. Beta will tell if it really is a problem tho.

[Littleman]

Yes, people will simply rehack. If someone is bringing even a modicum of strategic thought to this fight, they'll be pushing beyond the base even during the assault. Adjacent hexes have benefits to captures, remember that. If the hacking team doesn't have adjacent hexes, they should most definitely lose the fight. Slower hack times or slower ticket gain, whatever the adjustment, no adjacent hexes only hurts the hack.

Also, since SOI's will likely deny enemy squad spawning within them and possibly even galaxy/sunderer spawning, capturing the base is a matter of the defense mopping up and making it too difficult to get back to the base to hack any part of it by, again, capturing hexes beyond the base.

Always fight like you're on the offense. Always fight to move forward.

[EisenKreutzer]

It seems to me that control of spawn points is just as important as control of the base. beta will tell if this is an issue.

[Attackmack]

Agree with OP.

Although im aware that these streams and vids are from the beta test with functions and settings that will probably not be in the retail, I'm still very concerned that capturing/defending a base will not yield the same sense of accomplishment as it did in PS1.

My first two thoughts is:

-that there should be (as in PS1) a hacking tool required to hack consoles, and without a proper hacking cert it should take a LONG time to finish. This have been talked to death, I know, but even though they are aiming to please casual gamers (and kids?) its shouldn't be to hard to learn that one is required to hack.

-After a base switches ownership, or is secured after some time being contested, there should be a lockdown for at least 15 mins, maybe longer, before the consoles are open for hacking again.


This gives a better sense of actually accomplishing something AND it gives all involved factions a chance to regroup and reassign missions and overall change of strategy/targets.

I really do hope that when game finally goes retail, there will be mechanics stopping the endless run n gun for control points (what is shown so far looks more like a round of COD domination).

[Coreldan]

I'm not too concerned just yet, partially cos it seems the testing it still limited to a few bases, so they dont seem to have that much options to go anywhere else except just keep attacking the same base.

That said, the concern is valid and I'm 100% sure some temporary lock or something will be implemented if fights will just keep revolving around same bases.

[Littleman]

That said, the concern is valid and I'm 100% sure some temporary lock or something will be implemented if fights will just keep revolving around same bases.

Key word being if. Technically speaking, if the invaders can't already push the original home owners out of the base, their chances of successfully taking it are slim. After all, once the first point is successfully hacked, it's now 1 point vs 5. That's a big lead for the defense.

A good empire will surround the base with friendly hexes and most definitely will make the enemy fight for every inch of land. If we're to focus solely on fighting/preparing within the bases, we're approaching Planetside 2 with entirely the wrong mind set.

I've no doubt bunkers have spawning capabilities. Encouraging in-field spawning without the need for a mobile spawn point would facilitate field combat, so it really would be in the defense and attackers best interest to take territory beyond the base limits if they really want to win.

[Doxy]

10 min lock would be ideal imho. Guess we can try and sway dev to this when we are in beta.

[maddoggg]

I like OP's idea of a base lock down after the facility is captured(although i feel like 30 mins is too long,i think 10 mins would be better).
I also think that another cool way to handle that potential problem would be to give the team who have just captured the base an even bigger advantage and make it really hard for the oposing team to continue fighting over that base(which would force them to loose ground and retreat).

[Littleman]

I like OP's idea of a base lock down after the facility is captured(although i feel like 30 mins is too long,i think 10 mins would be better).
I also think that another cool way to handle that potential problem would be to give the team who have just captured the base an even bigger advantage and make it really hard for the oposing team to continue fighting over that base(which would force them to loose ground and retreat).

The only reason one side should be losing ground is because another is over whelming them, not because of a mechanic giving them little other choice.

I feel like my posts are being ignored for more wild and unfounded imaginings again. The hex system plays a deeper role in everything this time around, including base captures. This is the PS1 vet mindset I fear will permeate PS2: "bases are all that's worth fighting over."

[SkilletSoup]

I agree with OP. A 10-15 minute lock would be good for a catch your breath reward and moving the lines up.

[Xyntech]

With the ticket system, wouldn't an attacking force have to capture half of the control points (or more, depending on how many surrounding territories each side controlled) in order to take the base?

I imagine it will play out a lot like in the first Planetside. Once the hack goes through or the defenders secure the base, a lone hacker will be quickly killed and the hack resecured. As long as the enemy doesn't control a majority of control points for a majority of the hack time in PS2, the ticket counter will never be in danger of favoring the enemy team.

In PS1, we have the problem that a fight is over, but we still have to sit around for 15 minutes defending a hack to go through, because one lone person could come and undo the entire hack if the console is left unguarded. This will never be a concern in PS2. We can secure a base and freely move on to the next one, only sending rapid responders back to the base if a lone hacker does happen to hack a point or two.

I'm really not seeing this being a major issue. I'd rather see how big a problem it actually is before talking of swaying the devs minds on anything.

[FuzzyandBlue]

Yes, people will simply rehack. If someone is bringing even a modicum of strategic thought to this fight, they'll be pushing beyond the base even during the assault. Adjacent hexes have benefits to captures, remember that. If the hacking team doesn't have adjacent hexes, they should most definitely lose the fight. Slower hack times or slower ticket gain, whatever the adjustment, no adjacent hexes only hurts the hack.

Also, since SOI's will likely deny enemy squad spawning within them and possibly even galaxy/sunderer spawning, capturing the base is a matter of the defense mopping up and making it too difficult to get back to the base to hack any part of it by, again, capturing hexes beyond the base.

Always fight like you're on the offense. Always fight to move forward.

I agree with what you are saying and hope to see awesome strategies forming around the outlying facilities.

My main concern lies in the fact that not every enemy will be dead when the base gets captured. Some may even be standing by a hack point. They can hack a terminal in a matter of seconds and the whole battle starts again.

The more I think about it this problem may be made even worse by outfit play. If all bases are 6 hack points, a smart outfit will try hold three of them if all three empires are fighting, and four of them if its just two empires. Meaning there may always be an enemy or two by those last cap points.

Does anyone know if we've seen any footage of an outlying facility being contested?

[bigcracker]

I agree with OP the Hex should be locked for about 15minutes until it can be captured again. Them places look huge so gives the defending team to clear out squads and galaxies

[Kezz]

My main concern lies in the fact that not every enemy will be dead when the base gets captured. Some may even be standing by a hack point. They can hack a terminal in a matter of seconds and the whole battle starts again.
Only it won't. Start again. Not until that remnant has hacked 4 of the 6 points, and there's a chance of the base, in the fullness of time, flipping again. At least that's how I read it. So if there's one "stay behind", you just need one feller to spawn into your base, and follow them round, resecuring the capture points as the interloper moves on to the next. They don't even need to fight, just not get dead for too long.

[Xyntech]

Here's where I'm seeing a logical fallacy:

My main concern lies in the fact that not every enemy will be dead when the base gets captured. Some may even be standing by a hack point. They can hack a terminal in a matter of seconds

True. But...:

and the whole battle starts again.

I think you may be leaping to conclusions here.

The whole battle only starts again if there are enough people to defend those freshly hacked points. If there are enough enemies still around to hold those points, than the battle isn't really over at all, it's just entered a new round of contention.

I actually think this is a good thing. Battles can last as long or as short as they need to. One facility can get captured within a minimum amount of time due to minimal opposition, while another facility will rage through multiple captures and defenses until one side gains the upper hand.

Remember that there is no way to undo a hack process in PS2. You can only resecure a point so that your defensive side gains a maximum amount of tickets and pretty much guarantees that your sides ticket counter will max out first. If there were a timer that prevented a base from being hacked for x amount of minutes after flip or a defense went through, then we would never ever have some of those epic drawn out battles like we had in PS1, where people keep trying to hack the console, and the defenders keep succeeding in resecuring.

Having an unhackable time would also be open to exploits. Have one person log onto an enemy alt and come to hack a friendly base, just so that your side can resecure, get the base defensive cap, and have zero chance of the enemy being able to hack the facility for x amount of time.

If the enemy leaves a few people behind at 3 or 4 of the capture points and hacks them right after the base flips/is defended, then I think the other side is just going to waltz in, kill those few people, and rehack the points. As I said before, if there are enough enemies that the defenders can't do that, then nobody has any proper right to say that the battle is over at all.

[Hamma]

It's a bit to early to worry about this stuff there is tons of time to flesh out how these mechanics will work.

[Kriegson]

The only issue I have with no "lockdown timer" is that there would be virtually no incentive to move the fight to different facilities.
If a facility can constantly be fought over, what is the incentive to attack anything else? Yeah, you can get pushed out, but why attack a different facility when you can just keep going after that some one you want?

I think a lock time or hex lock is necessary to keep people moving about the map and to prevent things from stagnating over a handful of central bases that everyone is fighting over, all the time.

Hex/Time lock
After a base is captured there is a small window to counter attack (maybe 3 minutes). If no point is successfully hacked after that time period, the base is locked down for a time in order to allow empires to move to other bases rather than sitting and defending the same one.

Alternatively, large facilities that are entirely surrounded with friendly hexes should not be hackable. Towers, outposts and resource mines however should always be capture, and provide a method for back hackers to wreak havok, but not do ridiculous things that should require large amounts of teamwork and manpower otherwise.

[Littleman]

The only issue I have with no "lockdown timer" is that there would be virtually no incentive to move the fight to different facilities.
If a facility can constantly be fought over, what is the incentive to attack anything else? Yeah, you can get pushed out, but why attack a different facility when you can just keep going after that some one you want?



The one's whom should be responsible for discouraging these stubborn aggressors are even more stubborn, opposing aggressors. People will get the idea to focus their efforts on another base, by the way. They'll also focus on towers and bunkers, the former having vehicle spawning capabilities, and the latter more than likely having infantry spawning capabilities. The true value in bases this time around is their exclusive access to auraxium. If you need a forward point with vehicle spawning capabilities, towers will do just fine.

Winning in Planetside will involve fighting smarter, not just harder, and over everything, not just bases. Hexes absolutely matter, the base is just a contested area.

Further, ticket gain may very well be based on the status of adjacent hexes. For all we know, hacking a base point but not having a friendly hex nearby might slow ticket gain to an absolute crawl even if the offense has all 6 points.

Finally, I believe in one AGN they mentioned a king of the hill capture system for some bases? It may still use the ticket system, but it's a single contested point within the base.

I simply don't agree with a lock out timer. If one empire takes the base, great, but in no way should that discourage the losers from continuing to fight over it because there's no point to for X amount of time. If the base isn't secure, the base isn't secure, regardless of whether or not it switches hands.

[Memeotis]

Like Coreldan said. They way they have it now is deliberate, since they only have a few bases and not that many players. They're testing technical stuff now, not mechanics. Once they start having 2000 players per continent, they will start to balance things like a the temporary lock right after base capture.

I think 10 minutes would be good. Not too long, but long enough to discourage outfits from waiting around rather than going to another territory.

[Dloan]

I simply don't agree with a lock out timer. If one empire takes the base, great, but in no way should that discourage the losers from continuing to fight over it because there's no point to for X amount of time. If the base isn't secure, the base isn't secure, regardless of whether or not it switches hands.

Quite so. Without holding the majority of capture points, the enemy can never capture the base (ignoring surrouding territory holdings). This is equivalent to the PS1 tower situation, except I'm not even sure these captured base points willl enable you to spawn.

[Kriegson]

The one's whom should be responsible for discouraging these stubborn aggressors are even more stubborn, opposing aggressors. People will get the idea to focus their efforts on another base, by the way.

But if all bases are captureable 100% of the time, leaving a base almost guarentees it will be attacked, or that you will be exposing your own team to an attack. Why even attempt to fight enemies where they are the strongest and instead just run around capturing bases where they have less presence?

Imagine a scenario where a coalition of outfits capture a central base. The enemies pull back, and the coalition advances towards another base to attack. The enemies who fell back simply go to the base that the coalition has just captured, and start hacking it again. The coalition has to either go back to defend the base, or simply give it up and have wasted all that time and effort for nothing.

If there's a massive advance that just crushes through the continent, capturing base after base, the other factions could simply follow up behind them, re-capturing everything they've taken.

With supply lines via hex control, expanding aggressively would simply be impossible as any captured base could be taken from you and end up with your areas being cut off at any given moment.

I don't feel that I'm fully articulating the issues I have with no lockdowns, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from on this one?


I simply don't agree with a lock out timer. If one empire takes the base, great, but in no way should that discourage the losers from continuing to fight over it because there's no point to for X amount of time.

You should have read on to the rest of my post =/
I suggested a system wherein a captured base has a limited amount of time for a successful hack to take place in order to keep it contested. Once that time expires without a successful hack, the base is locked.

For instance, VS capture a base from the TR, but the TR manage to get at least one point in the base hacked within 5 minutes, therefore the base is still in a contested state.

Alternatively, the NC capture a base from the TR, and before the TR can counterattack, the VS hit one of their vital facilities. The TR cut their losses and go to defend the base being siged by the vanu instead. After 5 minutes with no one successfully capping any of the hack points in the base, it gets locked to NC.

[Littleman]

Quite so. Without holding the majority of capture points, the enemy can never capture the base (ignoring surrouding territory holdings). This is equivalent to the PS1 tower situation, except I'm not even sure these captured base points willl enable you to spawn.

While it's not clear, I'm confident we can spawn at these locations. SOE wants to encourage in-field combat and holding territory. Making it convenient for the, shall we say, retreating faction to spawn on the receding front line would help facilitate this while their enemies would need to deploy galaxies and sunderers to keep pushing against them to any real effect.

Plus, there's like a bajillion spawn points whenever someone attempts to respawn in every video we've seen. Sure, they could be very distant out-of-area towers and bases, but I doubt it.

-Cutting this short for post length-

I don't agree with any of this. There is NO need for a lock out timer if your side is doing it right. SOE hasn't mentioned anything yet, but it's possible that it's impossible to capture territory too deep within an enemies hex grid. Until then, we can expect hexes to have a direct influence on capture times, and someone trying to take a base/tower/bunker without adjacent, friendly hexes, will likely be waiting a LONG time... too long. Finding their mobile spawn points likely won't be too difficult.

The team that presses forward capturing everything will take everything long before the "sneaky" side that is trying to back hack will get anywhere. Generally speaking, you can expect people on the front lines, which will constantly shift. Chances are, you'll see that wave of enemies plowing a trail on the continental map via the hex grid changing colors and can react accordingly, unless they're being smart bastards and synching hacks, then good on them! THAT is a valid strategic action if a bit difficult to pull of with zerglings in the mix.

Everything is important and contestable, and not merely for the resources, but for taking the territory beyond. If all you're going to hold are the bases, you deserve to get crushed. Towers are very much like bases now, only smaller. Bunkers (I imagine) help maintain a frontline in the field between towers and bases through troop deployment. Base captures shouldn't be reinforced with a lock out of any kind, even if it happens following a grace period for the losers.

Finally, that coalition you're speaking off WILL need to thin itself out as it spreads from location to location. That's actually one of the great equalizers of the Auraxian war: the empire that gains more land will have a harder time maintaining all of it, especially against the might of two separate empires that have no choice but to fight the one empire because of how much land said empire holds.

To summarize, if the base is NOT secure when it changes hands, then it is still being contested, because like towers and bunkers, it is simply contested area with a (super) structure on top. A lock out of ANY kind goes against this philosophy. The strategists will find ways to end the fighting on the base grounds proper through other means than a lock out. Count on it. For the record, these same methods will be deployed around towers to a lesser extent, and we'll likely be fighting over bunkers as if it were a game of Battlefield on a really big map!

The problem here is simple: people are thinking of bases in PS1 terms again. They're not PS1's bases. Bases in PS2 are, like the rest of the hex grid, territory to be taken for the resources and to make the next territory easier to take. Additionally, as with towers they are also forward armor/aircraft spawn points. Bases control a good chunk if land/hexes per so they're notably more demanding to conquer and hold, just as they should be.

As an alternate example, bases could be 6-7 separate hexes and each capture point turns their respective hex. Same difference, only this way one side can take the base bit by bit instead of holding a majority of the points to turn it. The point is, "bases" are just land now, not focal points like they were in PS1, with towers being something of a more impregnable forward spawn for the attacking force. The main, exclusive draw of bases in PS2 is auraxium. Important, yes, but not something where a lock out would be warranted.

NOTE: Bunkers seem to typically manage 2-3 hexes, towers 3-4 or even 5, bases always 7 in a circular pattern.

[Kezz]

The hex control system will make long, narrow offensive thrusts both slow and vulnerable, since they'll have more enemy hexes around them than friendly, so the forces trying to cut the thrust off at the root will be able (assuming similar competence and force levels) to recapture the skinny salient faster than it can be extended. Bulges in the line will have to be fairly broad to be sustainable.

And don't forget there's got to be somewhere for 2000 troopers a side to be fighting. I expect a fair amount of that will be executing and responding to opportunist/speculative "deep strikes", however difficult they are to pull off successfully, since they have to be dealt with, and that takes forces away from the "main effort".

[lolroflroflcake]

Higby talked about extra options for dealing with capture points in the form of sabotaging generators and stuff as something they were looking at in the future.

I'm willing to bet there will be a way to cripple the defenders advantage, whether if its by taking out spawns or shutting down some of those shields around entrances just to name a few potential ideas, if your good enough making it a fairly easy matter to clean out said defenders.

[Littleman]

Higby talked about extra options for dealing with capture points in the form of sabotaging generators and stuff as something they were looking at in the future.

I'm willing to bet there will be a way to cripple the defenders advantage, whether if its by taking out spawns or shutting down some of those shields around entrances just to name a few potential ideas, if your good enough making it a fairly easy matter to clean out said defenders.

Actually, I think this is more like evening the odds, since the defending empire would initially have the home team advantage of hardened defenses (turrets and shields) and on-site vehicle spawning capabilities, just as examples. Maybe even spawn tubes could be knocked out?