The n+1 problem

[p0intman]

There are many problems in the game with relation to the broader aspect of what some like to call 'battle flow'. It is that, in order to defeat any opponent at any facility, you only need to throw n+1 of your own at them in order to win.
There are few, if any locations in the game that can be called 'strategic'. Of the handful that do exist, I am going to refrain from naming them, because I have no desire for them to receive any attention. Attention to such places, has by and large, resulted in very negative changes to them.

Developers have in the past stated they don't want bases "to take all of an empire's resources to take" (ie, the crown, for example, has been used as an example by Higby). And while that is not a bad thing, it should not be something where you can merely overpower defenders with mass amounts of air power at most facilities, or the same with armor. That situation has existed for some time now, to the frustration of people who enjoy playing as infantry.

It is my opinion that most facilities, large and small, should have the capacity to allow a smaller force to hold out against larger numbers if they have the skill and coordination to do so. That is to say, I do not believe that the notion of simply throwing mass numbers around is a healthy all-encompassing tactic for the game to reward. This would require most facilities being redone in order to draw a definitive, non-negotiable line between where vehicular combat and infantry combat happens.

It would also require bases to be built to be defensible such that a facility under siege can be reinforced and defenders can push out and re-take the facility. This is currently impossible in the current paradigm, unless you arrive from outside of the fight and hit the problem from the outside with far superior numbers and speed. While this is not bad, and is a valid tactic, it requires having huge numbers at your disposal, and being able to throw them around very quickly and in a short amount of time. That is a problem, because most outfits simply don't.

[Mordelicius]

There are many problems in the game with relation to the broader aspect of what some like to call 'battle flow'. It is that, in order to defeat any opponent at any facility, you only need to throw n+1 of your own at them in order to win.
There are few, if any locations in the game that can be called 'strategic'. Of the handful that do exist, I am going to refrain from naming them, because I have no desire for them to receive any attention. Attention to such places, has by and large, resulted in very negative changes to them.

Developers have in the past stated they don't want bases "to take all of an empire's resources to take" (ie, the crown, for example, has been used as an example by Higby). And while that is not a bad thing, it should not be something where you can merely overpower defenders with mass amounts of air power at most facilities, or the same with armor. That situation has existed for some time now, to the frustration of people who enjoy playing as infantry.

It is my opinion that most facilities, large and small, should have the capacity to allow a smaller force to hold out against larger numbers if they have the skill and coordination to do so. That is to say, I do not believe that the notion of simply throwing mass numbers around is a healthy all-encompassing tactic for the game to reward. This would require most facilities being redone in order to draw a definitive, non-negotiable line between where vehicular combat and infantry combat happens.

It would also require bases to be built to be defensible such that a facility under siege can be reinforced and defenders can push out and re-take the facility. This is currently impossible in the current paradigm, unless you arrive from outside of the fight and hit the problem from the outside with far superior numbers and speed. While this is not bad, and is a valid tactic, it requires having huge numbers at your disposal, and being able to throw them around very quickly and in a short amount of time. That is a problem, because most outfits simply don't.

I disagree with the N+1 argument. A base is defensible as long as the Sunderer keep getting taken out. The smaller the base is, the harder it is to take out the Sunderer(s). This is why imo, each base should have a AV turret and an AA turret built in. Of course there is always a point where N+x will yield victory, but it's not absolute and not in the majority of bases.

The new Rush Lanes system imo will solve the battleflow problem, especially with the new random Instant Action they implemented. The problem is it seems to be still months away.

As i've mentioned in other threads, the new random Instant Action shattered the flow of battles. Players are still getting used to it and adjusting by using vehicles to travel. It's because players scatter too much and a big fight ends

[Ghoest9]

No. We dont need improved defenses most places.

We need improved motivation to defend.
-better rewards
-remove k/d and death count

If more places were as defensible as the crown the game would be lame.

[Sledgecrushr]

Youre right Pointman. This game was designed with the n+1 philosophy in mind. The developers knew early on that their game could not support a tremendous mass of players in one spot. So they made the decision to make these bases indefensible so the game would run smoothly. Now as soe makes strides in optimization there has to be changes in base design to reflect the growing capacity of this game to support larger numbers in one spot.
In my opinion defensibility should become more available as the game becomes better able to handle larger numbers of people in one spot.

[Silent Thunder]

The trick is to make it able to be defended in a good way, as I would hate to see a return to something like the old tech plants, where "defense" merely meant point a ton of emplaced guns at the back door, and hope the enemy isn't smart enough to send LAs en mass through the sides.

[Snydenthur]

No. We dont need improved defenses most places.

We need improved motivation to defend.
-better rewards
-remove k/d and death count

If more places were as defensible as the crown the game would be lame.

Only better rewards would be sufficient. Removing kd-ratio wouldn't change things at all.

Currently you'll just get +x% to your xp for defending. Give some fixed amount of xp too and watch people defend. Like the alerts-system. People actually try to take continents when it happens although it doesn't give that much reward.

[NewSith]

No. We dont need improved defenses most places.

We need improved motivation to defend.
-better rewards
-remove k/d and death count

If more places were as defensible as the crown the game would be lame.

If this one is a troll, it's a pretty fat one...

If every place was like the Crown, the game would be better, and there is no other of looking at it. Because strategy would've been involved. Because "CrownSide" wouldn't have existed in the first place. Because zerg would actually fail to do their merry-go-round thing all the time. Because it would take EFFORT to attack something.

The Zerg (which is by definition - players that do not play for objective, they play just to play, to chill out) will never be attracted by ANY kind of reward. You need EFFORT to attack something to equate it to effort you need to defend, instead of trying to equalize the rewards. Right now it's just a question of getting an AMS as close as possible to the objective and there you have it. N+1 in action.

[NewSith]

Why does N+1 work:


Sunderers are quicker to use than the base spawns. This makes Sunderer a flood machine.
Base layouts are designed in a way that Sunderers provide better spawning for defenders than the static spawns.
Most towers and outposts are designed so that 2 points are situated outside and only 1 is situated inside. This gives attacker a rock-solid advantage.
Chokepoints are near absent in most facility designs.
Interior designs are rarely truly interior. The very windows problem everyone remembers.
Base AV turrets cannot defeat an MBT 1v1.
Lack of visual distinction for important hexes, based on how often people ignore base satellites or small outposts (that is THE ONLY thing the new "SemiLattice" is going to fix).
Most defensible facilities are for some reason placed to the side of an actual "battleflow", like say The Bastion, Raven Landing, The Crown, etc.
Many defensible hexes are not truly defensible, because they either face the wrong direction (Lithcorp Secure Mine), or have a severe case of lower ground/holes in the perimeter (Howling Pass Checkpoint).


Red is what is not mentioned as being worked on.
Green is what is mentioned as being worked on.


You can add that to the OP if you agree, pointman.

[DarkBalths]

There's nothing wrong with defending as it is now. If you get your ass handed to you because the enemy has more men, maybe it's because you and your teammates just don't know how to defend a base properly. How about instead of trying to get the game changed so that you'll be good at it, you adjust your playstyle so that you can actually defend properly?

[NewSith]

There's nothing wrong with defending as it is now. If you get your ass handed to you because the enemy has more men, maybe it's because you and your teammates just don't know how to defend a base properly. How about instead of trying to get the game changed so that you'll be good at it, you adjust your playstyle so that you can actually defend properly?

How about instead of speaking about something you have no idea of, you go and actually stop playing with the zerg and go on a defense for once?


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My argument here is just as valid as yours.

[Kerrec]

I really don't understand this "N+1" thing.

Are you arguing that for N defenders, attackers only need to bring N+1 to win? Or vice versa?

Or are you saying that if you don't succeed at an attack/defense with N, you just keep increasing N until you succeed?

I can think of many situations in my personal game play that puts the lie to either theory. I have defended against larger numbers successfully until they lost adjacency and couldn't accomplish their objectives. Or there are many instances where we successfully attacked a larger defending force successfully.

So no, N+1 is not a rule in any way that supports my experiences in PS2. Besides, there is no rule or game mechanic that prevents one team from increasing "N" while allowing the other team to do so.

Having superior numbers is one of many tactics to complete an objective. It happens to be the "easier" tactic, and human nature will always gravitate towards what is easiest to accomplish. But that doesn't mean it is the only tactic or an absolute rule.

[NewSith]

I really don't understand this "N+1" thing.

Are you arguing that for N defenders, attackers only need to bring N+1 to win? Or vice versa?

Or are you saying that if you don't succeed at an attack/defense with N, you just keep increasing N until you succeed?

I can think of many situations in my personal game play that puts the lie to either theory. I have defended against larger numbers successfully until they lost adjacency and couldn't accomplish their objectives. Or there are many instances where we successfully attacked a larger defending force successfully.

So no, N+1 is not a rule in any way that supports my experiences in PS2. Besides, there is no rule or game mechanic that prevents one team from increasing "N" while allowing the other team to do so.

Having superior numbers is one of many tactics to complete an objective. It happens to be the "easier" tactic, and human nature will always gravitate towards what is easiest to accomplish. But that doesn't mean it is the only tactic or an absolute rule.

N+1 means something akin to the first.

It means that on equal terms (teamplay, luck and personal-skill wise), attackers only need one person to tip the balance towards them. The reason for that being generally that the designs do not give enough advantage to defenders. In reality the current facility engagements are not really that different from engagements on an open field.


With "N+1" as preferred to be described by pointman, "N" is not the key value here, "1" is, for it is too small of a number for an Attack-Defense concept.

[Kail]

The only problem I have with "defensibility" is that once a base is compromised you're boned, which means you have to have a solid defense before the attackers even arrive. Which rush lanes will hopefully help with.

I can think of many situations in my personal game play that puts the lie to either theory. I have defended against larger numbers successfully until they lost adjacency and couldn't accomplish their objectives. Or there are many instances where we successfully attacked a larger defending force successfully.

It's been the same for me as well, so I have trouble relating to these type of posts. Not to mention that if it takes a whole enemy platoon to root out your squad... isn't that a compliment to your squad? And you did do your job; you slowed enemy progress and required them to divert troops that could have been used elsewhere.

[Mox]

Pointman & NewSith you guys are right.
90% of the bases and facilities in ps2 are like swiss cheese. Its almost undefendable. Combined with shitty spawnroom design/positions (tunnels are still no real improvement) and the stupid location of the some capture points the attackers are even in the better position then the defenders in some cases.

[mrmrmrj]

What if the defending faction had some relief from the sunderer proximity limitations?

[Snydenthur]

If every place was like the Crown, the game would be better, and there is no other of looking at it. Because strategy would've been involved. Because "CrownSide" wouldn't have existed in the first place. Because zerg would actually fail to do their merry-go-round thing all the time. Because it would take EFFORT to attack something.

Actually, I don't think crown would be hard to take with zerg. It's just that people think it is so highly defendable, that they won't go there too often. When crown is attacked, it usually is just shooting from the hill at crossroads or just a few squads trying to challenge multiple platoons. When the zerg actually moves in, it can be taken out. It's of course a bit harder than the rest of the bases, but you don't need any tactics.

Ti alloys is a lot like crown too. When a zerg is around there, they usually stop. I've had a lot of situations where me and a few others go to the alloys and others just stay put. Can't they see that I'm running through an open field and not getting shot so there is nothing to be afraid of or is it just to farm certs? It's kind of absurd, since both crown and ti alloys are very defender friendly, if nobody is trying to get close.

[Mox]

What if the defending faction had some relief from the sunderer proximity limitations?

I dont think it would work. It is far better to make a general overhaul of the bases.
Spawns have to be located in the inner core of the bases.
Less entrances, less windows, more chokepoint. Real indoor fighting areas with no interference from vecs at all.

[Kerrec]

I would love to see bases redesigned to favor defenders.

For example, when they added the barriers to windows whose only purpose I could guess at is to prevent LA's from flying in, I was very disappointed. I imagined adding the same 1 way shields that you can pass thru, shoot out of, but not shoot into that is used on spawn room doors. BAM, fixed vehicle and aircraft spam affecting indoors, reduces entry points for enemies, increases area that defenders can use for cover since they don't have to worry about vehicle spam. The defenders also gain more exits (more ways to flank) while attackers are limited to doorways as entry points. In this situation, approaching a building is much more difficult and requires the use of combined arms, or flat out zerg rushes.

Also, I don't mind defending things like Amp stations against equal forces because the attackers need to attack 2 shield generators while defenders only need to keep ONE up. In that way, defenders have an advantage, and it is in those situations where I've seen outnumbered defenders hold off attackers for a long time thanks to the tunnels. I would actually go ahead and add another shield generator, so the defenders gain the advantage of only needing to keep ONE of three shields up to defend, while attackers need to be able to drop ALL THREE to successfully proceed.

I would love to see redesigned more defensible bases. But what does that have to do with the "N+1 problem"? I've seen lesser numbers successfully attack and/or defend. So what is the problem?

[wasdie]

Biggest issue I see is death isn't punishing enough. Too easy to teleport across the map on a respawn and too many respawn locations that cannot be shut down.

I wish there was a more active way of stopping respawning. Knocking down the shield gen at a small outpost then rushing in to blow the tubes would be great.

More chokepoints aren't needed. That leads to a not fun grind. What we need is slightly more penalty for death and more way to stop the defenders from just overrunning you with respawns.

The whole "redeploy" mechanic needs to go and we need to reduce the overall amount of places you can spawn from on death. You should be able to redeploy to warpgate, and that's it. When you die you should be able to spawn at the closest facility on the map, the closest AMS within a 200 meter radius to you, and the warpgate. Maybe introduce back in the idea of "binding" to a spawn point and AMS to increase the amount of spawnable points to 5 max.

[Canaris]

better base and outpost defenses have been needed since Beta, I think a lot of us have really dedicated time already to show the dev's just where many of the roblems were and gave many solutions.

Like Figment for example he's done so many briliant upgrade base designs a very small amount of which have been used like the blast shield changes to the towers but still the big changes that are required either will never be put in or on such a low priority they might aswell never get added.

[Stardouser]

Actually I think defenses should be nerfed insofar as their ability to hold out simply by respawn spamming. Whether that means bring back SCUs at small bases or whatever, nerf defense so that the game becomes more about strategic troop movement instead of falling back to the next closer base and respawn spamming from there. Let the front lines move faster and require strategic deployment strategies if you want the net effect to be on your favor.

[p0intman]

I really don't understand this "N+1" thing.

Are you arguing that for N defenders, attackers only need to bring N+1 to win? Or vice versa?

Or are you saying that if you don't succeed at an attack/defense with N, you just keep increasing N until you succeed?

I can think of many situations in my personal game play that puts the lie to either theory. I have defended against larger numbers successfully until they lost adjacency and couldn't accomplish their objectives. Or there are many instances where we successfully attacked a larger defending force successfully.

So no, N+1 is not a rule in any way that supports my experiences in PS2. Besides, there is no rule or game mechanic that prevents one team from increasing "N" while allowing the other team to do so.

Having superior numbers is one of many tactics to complete an objective. It happens to be the "easier" tactic, and human nature will always gravitate towards what is easiest to accomplish. But that doesn't mean it is the only tactic or an absolute rule.

I used n+1 to sum up the idea that you can simply throw mass numbers at a situation and eventually, the balance will tip so severely in your favor as to be impossible to recover from. That is a bit too long for a subject line, so n+1 is what I wrote instead. But yes, I'm agreeing with the fact that if you don't at first throw enough at a problem, keep escalating and it will eventually break and the balance will tip in your favor.

[DeltaGun]

Well I think everyone on the first page is wrong about how to solve "The n+1 problem".

For the Defenders to be able to defend against a larger number, the Defenders will have to have a higher K/d ratio. The problem is that killing an enemy only takes them out of the fight for ~20 seconds. Its as if you didn't kill the enemy at all.

There are two obvious solutions which are aimed at increasing the time it takes for the Attacker to get back into the battle after being killed by a Defender.

1. Add a no-deploy zone in a 100+ meter radius around EVERY base. In this zone, enemies can only spawn in via squad beacon.
or
2. Increase the respawn timer.

I can almost guarantee that this will solve most of the game's problems with numbers in base assaults and dramatically improve the feel of every battle.

[Sledgecrushr]

Well I think everyone on the first page is wrong about how to solve "The n+1 problem".

For the Defenders to be able to defend against a larger number, the Defenders will have to have a higher K/d ratio. The problem is that killing an enemy only takes them out of the fight for ~20 seconds. Its as if you didn't kill the enemy at all.

There are two solutions.

1. Add a no-deploy zone in a 100+ meter radius around EVERY base. In this zone, enemies can only spawn in via squad beacon.
or
2. Increase the respawn timer.

I can almost guarantee that this will solve most of the game's problems with numbers in base assaults and dramatically improve the feel of every battle.

Or make some changes to base design so that two out of your three capture points arent totally exposed. And move the scu tubes closer to where the objectives are at.

[DeltaGun]

Or make some changes to base design so that two out of your three capture points arent totally exposed. And move the scu tubes closer to where the objectives are at.

I think what you are trying to say is that they need to make it so the Defenders not only maintain a higher K/D than the attackers, but actually maintain a MUCH MUCH higher K/D because of the way bases will be set up to favor Defenders.

This is also a solution, but it has a couple of downsides

1. Every base will need to be redesigned.
2. It will lower attacker's K/D. People don't like that.

By increasing the time it takes an attacker to get into battle, it will encourage the attackers to group up and make a coordinated attack, and offer the defenders a short respite. It will become more about tactics and less about zerging.

[Sledgecrushr]

I think what you are trying to say is that they need to make it so the Defenders not only maintain a higher K/D than the attackers, but actually maintain a MUCH MUCH higher K/D because of the way bases will be set up to favor Defenders.

This is also a solution, but it has a couple of downsides

1. Every base will need to be redesigned.
2. It will lower attacker's K/D. People don't like that.

By increasing the time it takes an attacker to get into battle, it will encourage the attackers to group up and make a coordinated attack, and offer the defenders a short respite. It will become more about tactics and less about zerging.

This makes good sense. This would be easy to implement quickly. I like it.

[Crator]

^ Not certain about easy to implement quickly since "1. Every base will need to be redesigned". Many of us have been shouting about this ever since alpha/beta. Sure, K/D ratio will be higher for the defender but it's not like everyone is always an attacker or defender. You know, sometimes the defenders have to move out of the base to attack another base they don't have.

[Rothnang]

The problem is that Sunderers exist mostly in Vehicle space, so as long as the opponent has way more vehicles than you there is no effective way to go there and kill it for infantry base defenders.

Also unlike base terminals Sunderers are spawn location and critical objective all in one. That's a huge advantage for the purpose of defending one.

[Ghoest9]

If this one is a troll, it's a pretty fat one...

If every place was like the Crown, the game would be better, and there is no other of looking at it. Because strategy would've been involved. Because "CrownSide" wouldn't have existed in the first place. Because zerg would actually fail to do their merry-go-round thing all the time. Because it would take EFFORT to attack something.

The Zerg (which is by definition - players that do not play for objective, they play just to play, to chill out) will never be attracted by ANY kind of reward. You need EFFORT to attack something to equate it to effort you need to defend, instead of trying to equalize the rewards. Right now it's just a question of getting an AMS as close as possible to the objective and there you have it. N+1 in action.

The Crown is absolutely horrid game play.

Its fine to have a couple of places like this just for variety but its a miserable experience and one that we often have to go to since its the only available fight.

Its popular with a pontificating minority that posts here who are willing to sacrifice game play quality for some sort of imagined and forced depth.

[Crator]

^ I agree, The Crown can be frustrating. It's more down to landscape that makes it too defensible then it is due to layout of the tower imo though.

[NewSith]

The Crown is absolutely horrid game play.

Its fine to have a couple of places like this just for variety but its a miserable experience and one that we often have to go to since its the only available fight.

Its popular with a pontificating minority that posts here who are willing to sacrifice game play quality for some sort of imagined and forced depth.

Paraphrase that please...


Because what I read is you saying that The Crown sucks, and in reality it is worse than The Traverse?

[Ghoest9]

The Crown isnt fun - and because its so easily defended fights take forever.

The Traverse on the other hand is fun because its something different - that you occasionally do.

[Haro]

I need to say a couple things:

1. I think the updated lattice system, if it goes through, can go a long way to making battle flow more predictable. More predictability means that it will be more rewarding for people to set up defenses in advance with less of a chance of disappointment if the enemy offensive changes direction. This has happened to my outfit several times, it can really be a downer.

2. I think part of this issue could be further mitigated by increasing the number of deployable defenses. Maybe engi turrets that can be certed into public or platoon usage, defensive devices like sensors, shields, or blockades.

3. Improving base defenses certainly could be an idea, but only in moderation. I think this game would only suffer if every outpost and base had the same level of defense as the crown or most biolabs. Bases need to balance strong defenses with a few vulnerabilities that can be controlled, but require significant coordination or numbers to control them effectively. The vulnerabilities, on the other hand, should encourage the assaulting team to utilize more advanced tactics to exploit them, such as gal drops or jet pack assaults.

I think on many bases, a defense, well planned and established prior to the arrival of a defending force, can vastly improve the defenses of a base and improve its chances and time of holding substantially. It's just that such coordination, and even the luxury of knowing when and where the enemy is likely to strike, is a rarity in the game right now. I think having more deployable defenses and other defense-oriented features can allow people to coordinate more easily and effectively. Combined with a more predictable lattice, defenders would have more warning of attack, and could anticipate and prepare for attacks more often.

Ultimately, numbers will win and should win. That is a fundamental law of siege warfare. However, normally there are constraints on such an attacking force, and they do not have near infinite resources and manpower like we do in Planetside. Therefore, I think for the game to reach its full potency, the resource system needs to be rethought, with an addition of a resource for manpower, as well as a factor of attrition. Ultimately, attrition should encourage both attackers and defenders to accomplish objectives or face gradual penalties that make their job harder. For defenders, they may need to keep a supply line open in order to keep their base connected (while a disconnected base will help avoid a permanent turtle) while attackers will gradually have their capabilities diminished the longer they besiege a base.

I would generally avoid making permanent changes to bases to guarantee increased base defenses. This is because circumstances could change where a new base that was balanced when inhabited by loosely organized forces becomes impregnable with experienced and coordinated defenders. I think deployed defenses can be finer tuned and aren't a constant, requiring effective placement to reach their full potential. I also think its easier to implement, though further on down the line I think we may see things like upgrade able bases and destroyable defenses that would incorporate similar ideas into base architecture.

Finally, as the game progresses and grows in complexity, moving away from numerical superiority as the central advantage, we need better command tools to accommodate advanced, complicated unit tactics. Improved waypoints and better interfaces for platoon and outfit commanders could go a long way in ensuring that careful positioning or clever tactics matter more that numbers and respawn rates.

[Haro]

Sorry, double posted. Disregard/delete if a mod has a chance.

[Pella]

Only people here complaining are people that don't even play the game.

The new Alert System requires you to defend or attack. Giving the game allot more depth. And the rewards are well worth the effort.

It does a good job of splitting up the zerg, Resulting in awesome fights on a small/medium scale all over the contested map.

SOE have done a good move here.

[p0intman]

Only people here complaining are people that don't even play the game.

The new Alert System requires you to defend or attack. Giving the game allot more depth. And the rewards are well worth the effort.

It does a good job of splitting up the zerg, Resulting in awesome fights on a small/medium scale all over the contested map.

SOE have done a good move here.

if they break the zerg up or not is completely beside the point. the point still remains that base and general facility design is fucking terrible right now and the single most useful "tactic" is to not use tactics at all, but to simply pile more numbers on top of the problem until something breaks in the defense.

just because the alert system helps the problem sometimes does not make it excusable or ignoreable.

[LeilaniRock]

Only people here complaining are people that don't even play the game.

The new Alert System requires you to defend or attack. Giving the game allot more depth. And the rewards are well worth the effort.

It does a good job of splitting up the zerg, Resulting in awesome fights on a small/medium scale all over the contested map.

SOE have done a good move here.

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheSaltySeagull]

While I agree defense in general needs to be tightened up a bit I do not subscribe to the idea that defenders advantage should offset significant numerical advantages. If you have 10 guys defending and I throw 30 guys at you then yes you should break. If this was not the case then nobody would ever go on offense ever because you would just be farmed. You already have instances of this with people sitting in the crown or biolabs all day even if that is the only thing on the map they control.

Defenders should be able to hold off a force slightly larger than itself but no more then 15-20% bigger. Numbers should count for something and if you are crushed under the weight of superior numbers so be it. Base defense can and should offset some of this but not make it so that numbers count for nothing.

[Rothnang]

I think the crown is the best designed base in the whole game.

The problem with the crown is NOT that it is incredibly defensible. The problem with the crown is that it's the ONLY base that is incredibly defensible.

Think about it, if every single base on the map was like the crown, what would you get? A crown fight on the whole continent? No, of course not. The reason why you get never ending crown fights is because half the enemy faction is hanging out there. If all the bases were similarly difficult to conquer the opponent might have a reason to actually spread out and not just concentrate in one single base, and by extension it would give the attackers a reason to strike on multiple fronts to make sure the defenders can't all concentrate into a single base.

The crown is great because the huger the armies become the more difficult it becomes to conquer. That kind of design would encourage spreading out more and thinking tactically. The reason why the crown always does the exact thing that is sucky and painful about it is because there are no other bases like it, so nobody has the option of putting up a solid defense anywhere else.

[Pella]

if they break the zerg up or not is completely beside the point. the point still remains that base and general facility design is fucking terrible right now and the single most useful "tactic" is to not use tactics at all, but to simply pile more numbers on top of the problem until something breaks in the defense.

just because the alert system helps the problem sometimes does not make it excusable or ignoreable.

That is totally incorrect.

We run with about 15 Guys a night. Now i can quite simply look at the map and determine where the main bulk of the "Zerg" Is. Then i can check where the opposing outfits are by looking for "Enemy platoon" Detected.

Thus giving me a good fucking idea where to get good fights. And the Alert system makes this allot easier, Simply by peeling outfits away from the zerg to defend or attack.

Honestly you know shit. Facility's / Outposts are simple to defend when you deploy the right tactics. Its not about numbers at all. And if it gets to the point where its based on that you redeploy and move on.

We often re-secure AMP Station's / Techplant's with 1 Squad versus enemy platoons. Not because we are amazing its because we know how to.

Time's have changed.

[BlaxicanX]

I used to like the Crown quite a bit, when I first started joining, but I don't think it's as fun anymore. I feel like it's too defensible, much like bio-labs. It's fun to defend both of them, but attacking them is boring and tedious, because it almost always turns into a meat-grinder, whether you use the teleportation room or the landing pads, the only way to take either as an infantryman is to basically die a hundred times. After enough of your team dies a hundred times, you might end up trudging enough to take over the base.

That isn't good gameplay, imo. Constantly being funneled into a killing field and slaughtered in an inch-by-inch trudge up a hill or out of a teleportation room is not fun. My outfit doesn't even go to the Crown anymore, we deliberately avoid it whenever we don't have control of it, because we don't feel like getting stuck in for an hour.

So on that note, while I appreciate defensibly in a base, I think you really need a balance. A base should be defensible, but it shouldn't be so defensible that it takes the attacks forever and a day to get into it.

- - - -

As far as the idea of preventing Sunderers from deploying within 300 meters of a base, I'm weary of making supply-lines that long.

[Sledgecrushr]

The alert system at least right now has changed everything. That carrot of a 10k exp bonus moves people. On Connery last night we had a 45 minute wait to get onto esamir. It really was some of the most amazing fighting Ive had yet in this game.

[NewSith]

The alert system at least right now has changed everything. That carrot of a 10k exp bonus moves people. On Connery last night we had a 45 minute wait to get onto esamir. It really was some of the most amazing fighting Ive had yet in this game.

Wanna make a bet that it's temporary?


And it's gonna happen like this:
M:+0
Community: "A New Feature! Something different for a change! Let's use it!"
Devs:: "Oh, we implemented it and it works!"
M:+1
Community: "This feature is getting old. Can't be arsed. Anything new on the horizon?"
Devs: "We implemented it and it works."
M:+3
Community: "Nobody is using this system anymore, cmon devs remove it or refresh it or bring something new!"
Devs: "We implemented it and it works."


Now everyone who says that's not gonna happen, automatically makes a bet of 10 bucks against me and I call... The offer is valid until november.


The Traverse on the other hand is fun because its something different - that you occasionally do.

And why do you do occassionally? I have the Traverse as an example, because from all my experience with PlanetSide, no other hex changed its color so frequently...

[KodanBlack]

There are a large number of excellent thoughts on this topic.

My ideas are this:

- Bases need to be more defensible. add choke points to every base by rearranging the buildings and/or adding barriers.
- Revamp the resource system and XP system to make bases worth something. It should hurt to lose territory.
- Give a solid reward to defend a base, commensurate with the duration of the defense, or increase the defense bonus by 10% or so.

[Dougnifico]

You know, I think a lot of this could be fixed with a sphere of influence that acts as a sunderer denial radius. Also, keep the defense XP boost but add more reward. Say its 1,000XP to capture a base. Make it an extra 200XP if a cap ends in a defense victory and your bar was at least half depleted. Or you could make it so that every time the defense recaptured a point, every player gets 20 or 30XP. Something like that.