Game theory: PS2 base design without /jetpacks/ and Liberator /cannons/ [Archive]

View Full Version : Game theory: PS2 base design without /jetpacks/ and Liberator /cannons/

Figment

2013-04-12, 10:35 AM

Sledgecrushr

2013-04-12, 10:43 AM

Figment

2013-04-12, 10:48 AM

Provided they can fire while surging, Surgile-JH style complaints would definitely occur. :)

Edited OP to include that restriction, since that would indeed happen anyway.

moosepoop

2013-04-12, 10:52 AM

jetpack c4 wouldnt be a problem if the game was already filled with anti vehicle weapons.

make jetpacks have a loud noise like the infiltrator cloak. fair?

Figment

2013-04-12, 10:59 AM

Jetpack C4 is a problem?

Please note the relation to the topic: "PS2 base design". :) Edited main question for clarity.

Assist

2013-04-12, 10:59 AM

It's irrelevant whether this is going to happen or not, nor whether you would like it or not. Let's ignore that for now and just concentrate on how you think it would play out, objectively.

"What would happen if one of the following changes was made?"

1. Light Assault:
- Jetpacks removed
- Sprint boost added ("Surge")

2.1 Liberator:
- Cannons removed
- Bombhatches added

2.2 Liberator:
- Cannons restricted to very small downward angles
- Reduced rate of fire
- Liberator restricted in maneuvrability (especially stall angles)

Q1: What would become easier?

Q2: What would become harder?

Q3: What other roles/units would increase in importance?

Q4: What would happen to general population behaviour?

Q5: What would happen to the playstyles of these units?

Q1/Q2:
1. - Nothing would change from the LA point of view. It wouldn't be easier or harder. Bio Labs would be a hell of a lot more defensible since no LA's, but Amp Stations and Tech Plants wouldn't change.
2.1 - Liberators turned into bombers would dramatically change the ground combat, specifically Sunderer placement and tank usage. I think it would make the gameplay more in-line around battle fronts and less about hiding yourself from the air all the time.
2.2 - Stall angles would be amazing. I don't think it would change gameplay on the ground much, but it would create more teamplay in the Liberator and effectively stop the Dalton/Zephyr from being used as the ultimate AA gun.

Q3:
1. - Heavy Assault would take more dominance at infantry fights. Far less people would play LA, MAX's would be used a lot more without the threat of C4. Infantry fights would become much more about spamming a doorway / fixed position and less about aiming to kill, so high capacity magazines would be more important.
2.1.2.2 - ESFs would have to become more supportive to air combat. The tail gunner on the Liberator would have to be effective. The piloting would have to change a ton, Liberators would have to be quick hit and run vehicles (Like they currently can do in large fights), and less about sitting at max distance picking off targets.

Q4:
1. - Too much would change from jetpack removal. Tanks could be less aware of their surroundings, MAX's would be ridiculously more effective not having to worry about C4, and choke points would become even more defensible in Bio Labs. I think it would ruin Bio Lab fights, but it could improve the Amp Station/Tech Plant fights. Amp Station walls would have to be fixed so you can't jump a MAX up them. I don't think it would change at all how small bases play out.

2.1/2.2 - Oh man, would completely change the game. Liberators would have to be skilled, but then you could increase the damage they do to the ground. There would have to be balancing done in accordance to the nerfs, obviously. Liberators would become more of the supportive bomber and less of the annihilation tool they currently are. I think it would produce more balanced gameplay due to the roles being selected. I think the general population would love these changes to the Liberator but the extremely vocal Lib farmers would throw such a hissy fit that these changes would never go through.

Q5:
1. Light Assault would be played so much less. Jetpack is the class, take that away and I don't think anyone would be using it that much. It would probably be played less than infiltrator.

2.1/2.2 - Everything changes, went over a lot of it in the above paragraphs. I think the changes would be better for air combat and for ground combat. Liberator would finally become balanced with the rest of the game.

moosepoop

2013-04-12, 11:01 AM

Jetpack C4 is a problem?

Please note the relation to the topic: "PS2 base design". :) Edited main question for clarity.

yes.

when im in a tank, i zoom in to shoot something for 5 seconds, and i get randomly killed by jetpack c4 all the time, with no warning.

wasdie

2013-04-12, 11:02 AM

OctavianAXFive

2013-04-12, 11:12 AM

Challenge Accepted.

Will edit this post once I'm done critical storming.

Edit: will just post reply.

Whiteagle

2013-04-12, 11:17 AM

You don't need to remove any gameplay element, you just need engineers who know how to build bases to defend from ALL types of weapons on the battlefield. It's like the base designers forgot that they had to deal with jetpacks.
Indeed, a large number of problems would be fixed if the Bases in this game were designed with three-dimensional thinking in mind.

Liberators and Rocket Pods wouldn't be quite the pain they are if we'd started with base designers who realised that "From above" is a valid Attack Vector.

Hell, we're only just NOW getting walls and barriers to prevent TANKS from driving right up to the Spawn Room Doors in the Public Test Server...

...Is it sad that, with my paltry experience in Second Life, I think I could come up with better layouts?

wasdie

2013-04-12, 11:27 AM

Indeed, a large number of problems would be fixed if the Bases in this game were designed with three-dimensional thinking in mind.

Liberators and Rocket Pods wouldn't be quite the pain they are if we'd started with base designers who realised that "From above" is a valid Attack Vector.

Hell, we're only just NOW getting walls and barriers to prevent TANKS from driving right up to the Spawn Room Doors in the Public Test Server...

...Is it sad that, with my paltry experience in Second Life, I think I could come up with better layouts?

I understand why they designed the bases the way they did initially. With more players, just making tons of bottlenecks would result in a lot of lag and grinding. It wouldn't be that fun. However they went way too far with the open base layout and really screwed it all up.

Their ideas were sound. A mix of tank and infantry fighting would happen at bases. However this has ended up with tanks being too prevalent within bases and there being no area where infantry fighting can really occur. It's gotten better, but not good enough.

Planetside 1 had a really good mix of infantry combat and tank combat that is just lost here in Planetside 2. I do not believe Planetside 1 bases would work here in Planetside 2 given the increase in amount of players, decrease in TTK, and all of that stuff, but the general idea of having an area dedicated to infantry fighting in each base needs to be brought back.

Buildings are going to be natural chokepoints, but with some clever design you can avoid terrible bottlenecks. Buildings can be more open yet still provide a lot of fun for infantry combat.

I think all of the main bases need more indoor areas with larger buildings. Hanger and warehouse like structures would be great.

Sledgecrushr

2013-04-12, 11:36 AM

yes.

when im in a tank, i zoom in to shoot something for 5 seconds, and i get randomly killed by jetpack c4 all the time, with no warning.

Lol I am trying radar out on my lightning.

Sledgecrushr

2013-04-12, 11:40 AM

About the base design If the developers had framed base design as part of an ongoing story. For instance the lack of defensability at the inception of this game should have been attributed to the beginning of the war when bases probably have not been prepared for conflict. As the war drags on the bases would become more and more fortified mini fortresses. But the devs have missed this opportunity to make base design part of a ongoing narrative.

@sorry about going off topic there

Chaff

2013-04-12, 12:14 PM

^ +1
Never thought of that angle Sledge, but I concur.

I don't remember without looking. Utility Cert tree ? What other options do you have to give up to add radar ?
IR Smoke, Fire suppression,.....?
.

Cats

2013-04-12, 12:24 PM

Figment

2013-04-12, 12:33 PM

yes.

when im in a tank, i zoom in to shoot something for 5 seconds, and i get randomly killed by jetpack c4 all the time, with no warning.

Well I suppose it was inevitable that bad players would go after C4 next

No need to be insulting to Moose. The amount of times I've ended tanks by a Light Assault C4 attack on some MBT's rear or top by me are very, very frequent (daily get ribbons for it now).

C4 doesn't give tanks any warning or chance to react. Sometimes they get lucky and speedboost away or back up so I come into view (or worse, accidently hit me) while I'm placing C4.

The only thing they could hypothetically do is have radar. Gunners don't matter. Gunners are equally easily distracted and focused, that's just a matter of timing the approach and staying out of sight for the C4 user.

The amount of "Extreme Menace Kills" taken out this way is huge and I wouldn't call these bad tankers. After all, all I need is two seconds in their rear. Even if they are aware of my presence, it's often not enough to do something about it. And yes, I gladly risk death in C4 suicide jump-'n-runs (see my K/D).

If you were to suggest this topic is motivated by C4, you'd be wrong btw. It's more motivated by the effects of 3D defense design and defensibility. And me ignoring 100% of defenses when I play LA.

So in that respect, what would change? Bridgefights. I currently use the support structure to jump up behind enemy units without them having any chance of seeing me approach. Particularly AMSes and heavy tanks. With the surge version, this would be a lot harder to accomplish. Especially due to terrain becoming an impediment, where it's currently an asset.

Stardouser

2013-04-12, 12:49 PM

Without jetpacking much of the game's uniqueness would be removed and at most bases claymores etc would be much more effective for defense since no one can do anything but go in thri doors.

As for C4, that's fine. Jetpacks don't give you much speed,so use a secondary gunner and don't camp next to high places they can drop down from.

ShadoViper

2013-04-12, 02:43 PM

What about removing c4 from light assault instead of jetpack removal?

moosepoop

2013-04-12, 02:48 PM

What about removing c4 from light assault instead of jetpack removal?

just make jetpacks have noise.

Figment

2013-04-12, 03:07 PM

What about removing c4 from light assault instead of jetpack removal?

Would have no impact on base design, so not relevant to the thread.

Kail

2013-04-12, 03:40 PM

After all, all I need is two seconds in their rear.

Quoting for posterity :)

Tom Peters

2013-04-12, 05:13 PM

If there's one thing I miss from Planetside 1, it's definitely the old liberator bombing method.

It was so much more epic, realistic, and it really gave you a sense of "Holy fucking shit, it's raining bombs!" rather than just *Boomurdead* ala Dalton.

Wahooo

2013-04-12, 05:17 PM

I like the idea of jetpacks having noise... at least be as loud as the infiltrators cloak.
Not sure I care much about jetpacks and base design. I'm happy about the removal of IA dropping whole squads on top of bases, the JP allows for creativity and great placement of spawn beacons which I think if overall base design continues to improve in defensability then these will be keys to victory.

Libs being bombers rather than gunships I feel would greatly increase my enjoyment of the game.

Rothnang

2013-04-12, 05:22 PM

What would happen?

1. Nobody would play Light assaults anymore.
2. Nobody would play Liberators anymore.

That's pretty much all.

You never needed a light assault to get past the wall, a squad beacon or instant action drop will do just fine. You can also just walk right through the doors on an Infiltrator.

OctavianAXFive

2013-04-12, 05:23 PM

1.)
Q.1: Base defense would become moderately easier. Assuming they make it so you can’t just run up the side of a tower, LA’s aren’t the real issue when trying to hold out. There are other glaring defense issues that are the real nemesis. That being said, the jetpack does inherently increase the number of attack vectors, meaning defenders have that many more directions to pay attention to.

With Surge LA’s would be better able to avoid grenades in certain situations.
Tanks and Max suites would be safer in CQC. Also normal infantry don’t have to worry about getting C4 bombed by a suicide LA.

Q.2: Diving out of liberators or ESFs and surviving without an ejection seat.
Attacking would be a little harder.

The LA class would generally be a lot harder to utilize properly. I’m not sure there would be a point to it with just Surge.

Q.3: I think infiltrators would have a lot to gain. The Light Assault is all about gaining a tactical edge either through attacking from a surprise direction or bypassing some layer of defense. The infiltrator would be better tasked to do this in some situations with the demise of the jetpack.

Across the board I think heavy assault will see the biggest increase. Not only is heavy assault an excellent class in terms of firepower, but infiltrators do not default with an SMG or Scout Rifle. More casual players would not spend certs on getting an SMG or scout rifle, though I suppose they could drop 7USD for a single digital gun for (essentially) one class for one faction (my disdain for their marketing model is second to none).

Using the beacon or other future forms of orbital drop deployment would see an increase in benefit.

Assuming the holes in walls are removed and people can’t walk up towers, a stronger combined arms approach would be needed to breach the outer walls. Heavy fire power and snipers would be more necessary to keep the defenders off. It would also mean other forms of siege equipment might be necessary for getting over walls or terrain obstacles.

Q.4: A steep decrease in people playing LA. I don’t think it would have that deep of an impact on player behavior if implemented tomorrow beyond the extinction of LA players.

Q.5: Those who stick it out and play LA would probably stick to using shotguns or SMGs. The carbine is no longer an optimal weapon because the ranges LA would be effective would be limited. Other classes have better weapons and abilities at range. With only surge, the presumed use of the LA would be to get in close, dashing from cover to cover. It could be effective but honestly a Max Suit is better suited for the task you’re asking of them at that point.

Other Thoughts:
Right now, the problem is that LA is the default class for scaling a defended wall. That’s obviously what it was designed to do, but it gets stale in terms of giving the players tactical options. The real crime LA commits in terms of base design is the lack of depth generated by having it. Additionally, C4 bombing is brutally shallow and not fun for the people being bombed.
The bases are designed pretty well for light assault to be useful but not overpowered, even if they are the single best way of breaching the outer wall. They can bypass certain walls, but only if they are undefended. This is often the case because walls are deathtraps for defenders. I find it much more useful to stay around the shield generators, the obvious target of the light assaults. I think the curtain walls around bases are too big in most cases, leaving plenty of gaps for light assaults to get through. Making the large facilities a little smaller in diameter would help. I have a simple design solution that would help make the walls just better. Have a slightly raised firing platform all around the wall so the defenders can peak over the raised crenellations. Right now you only have a few safe places to stand on a wall and shoot from. The predictability of those places is what makes them into death traps and easy for LA to bypass.

The LA class is too heavily tied to the jetpack to get rid of it outright. Surge won’t make the class useful in the same way other class powers make them useful. Other powers/abilities would have to be considered. I think right now LA is too good for how spammable it is.

Here is my crack at it.

What about making Light Assault something you “pull” like a Max Suit? You spend infantry resources and you can equip a Light Assault suit once every X minutes. You could completely revamp the LA class this way by making it another kind of max suit. Take away the conventional guns and give this new suit some special weapons. Instead of a jetpack think of it like an iron man suit but far weaker in terms of durability. This would mean you would still be able to jump over walls, but it’s a more dangerous option, making other options more appealing, which is all that I think is really needed.
I really hate C4 and landmines in FPS games. I can understand them in PS2 but they always feel cheesy. If you take the C4 away from the LA class, then you’re left with a novel jet pack guy. That really limits LA’s uses beyond slaying enemy troops and shutting off generators. It kind of pigeon holes them. That’s why I think turning it into a cool iron manesque suit with varied direct damage abilities would allow for more creative options both from a design perspective and from a player implementation perspective. You’re still able to get the edge on tanks and maxes, but you can create a more dynamic battle than just “will he get the C4 down and detonated before he’s shot?”

2.1.)

Q.1: ESF battles with liberators would be even easier. Not that I really care for a single liberator to even be remotely capable of soloing an ESF in the first place.

Q.2: Bombing would be a lot harder. The liberator would have to be a lot faster because you would have to be directly over your target (I am assuming we’re talking about ye olde carpet bombs) in order to engage. With the cannon, the liberator can act a bit more like a gunship, firing from an off-angle. That won’t be the case with dumb bombs. Enemy rockets and flak will have more time to track the Liberator if it has to be directly overhead of whatever it’s trying to bomb. It also means the liberator is going to have a highly predictable course.

Q.3: ESF ground pounders would be more valuable. They are already more useful than Liberators because of the crew requirements versus the damage output. 3 ESFs are already more survivable and dish out more damage per person. The flip side of course is that the skill gap for using a liberator is lower. That would change with the addition of bomb bays. The ESFs would now also be easier to use in terms of ground attack if you forced lib crews to coordinate directly with each other.

It would increase the importance of spotting or some sort of scout radar for use with the liberator so that the pilot can see on his mini-map what he/she is flying over.

Q.4: I think Liberator pilots will hate it, but I don’t think overall behavior will change dramatically across all styles. It’s hard to say whether you will actually see more ESFs. There is undoubtedly a sub group of people that specifically just like the liberator as an air vehicle and would not switch to ESFs but abandon the liberator. I suppose on the other end of that will be people who might really enjoy the new liberator mechanic to balance out the people who stop using it. This is a trickier one to hammer down as to what exactly people would do with this kind of change.

Q.5: I think I’ve made it pretty clear what I think would happen to liberators. To add to what I’ve previously said, I think you’ll see more liberator packs and less solo hero bombers.

2.2.) Pretty much the same vein of things as 2.1

Q.1: Killing Liberators with just about everything.

Q.2: Killing just about everything with Liberators.

Q.3: See above.

Q.4: See above.

Q5: It would just make them too bad. At least the carpet bombs could be potent but a reduced rate of fire would make the Zephyr not quite as useful. I suppose this would also promote using liberators in packs, which I like better anyway. You might also see more people switch to the Dalton.

Other thoughts:

I’ve thought about bombers in PS2 some since I did a little write up on some neat brain storms I had about faction specific bombers. The Liberator’s problems are not inherent to the Liberator. They are out of place in the game’s ecosystem. I wouldn’t actually change much with the Liberator itself, beyond maybe a few minor tweaks here or there.

A lot of other things need to change before we can reexamine the Liberator as a unit. Right now the relationship between air and ground is in turmoil. Inherently, bombers are powerful; otherwise militaries wouldn’t use them as pervasively as they do. A bomber’s strength comes mostly from the fact that it does high damage to a targeted location from a direction that location is lightly protected from. Instead of toying with the Liberator, I think we need to toy with its ecosystem. Of course you can make bases have better air cover or air defense, but what about the attackers attacking a base? Their sunderer is extremely exposed. No matter what you do to the Liberator, you’re really not going to change that. Right now the counter play is to use ESFs, sky guards and the crowd favorite burster maxes to cover the sunderer. The problem becomes that attackers have to focus too much on defending their supply line. Defenders should have an advantage while on defense, meaning that the attackers are going to need to throw as much of their weight into the actual battle for the base as possible. But taking away resources to stop air assaults puts a drain on that. But if you make it require less resources to defend the sunderer by buffing mobile AA, then you run into trouble with making aircraft impotent in all but a few niche situations. Additionally, it’s extremely boring to sit there waiting by your sunderer to see if an enemy counter attack ever comes. The vicious cycle continues when that mobile AA is deployed inside any fortified area. I point to the TR defense of the Skydock on Mattherson. The base is terribly exposed to the air but if you put 50 dual bursters on rooftops, it might as well have had a warpgate shield. If you increase base defense to go along with strong mobile AA, then the problem is further compounded.

Bases need strong stationary AA to deal with Liberators. I think I’d go ahead and refund people certs and write off A2G ESFs entirely, maybe creating another solo piloted ground attack vehicle later that isn’t as agile or cheap (faction specific?). From there I would question AMS Sunderers and what I could do about creating an attacker forward deployment that isn’t woefully exposed to defensive bombers while at the same time scaling back ground based mobile AA. Perhaps at that point we can examine how to tune Liberators but I don’t think they will ever not be incredibly devastating unless you have an air force to swat them off.

I know people don’t like the whole “air counters air” mentality but I have to say, SoE didn’t invent that, that’s inherently the way it is (unless you consider highly sophisticated G2A radar guided missile systems, which is another can of worms in a game like this). Only aircraft can really ever go up and find other aircraft. Flak guns were always a crapshoot, relying on ridiculously thick coverage of the sky to be effective.

A single unmolested bomber will always be horridly powerful unless everyone is underneath either the ground or some indestructible structure. The way to stop them from doing damage at all really should come in the form of intervention by other aircraft. Otherwise you get a really vicious cycle which we are in the middle of.

This is the part where everyone starts screaming for cloaked AMS's but I'm not gonna go there because it's going to wander off topic.

Creative problems require creative solutions. There is much to ponder but it will quickly go outside the scope of this thread.

Rothnang

2013-04-12, 05:56 PM

The reason why a bomber that's operating unopposed is such an absurdly powerful unit is because there is simply no counterplay to it. The availability of viable cover against an aircraft simply can't be made big enough to perpetually evade getting shot from the air without putting roofs over half of Auraxis.

Conversely air really has no meaningful counterplay to AA, and what we end up with is just a straight up spreadsheet war. All that the devs ever accomplished by tweaking damage numbers and stuff like that was change how many people you need to put on AA duty.

Nothing about this situation will ever change until the engagements are framed more fairly.

Cats

2013-04-12, 11:33 PM

No need to be insulting to Moose. The amount of times I've ended tanks by a Light Assault C4 attack on some MBT's rear or top by me are very, very frequent (daily get ribbons for it now).

C4 doesn't give tanks any warning or chance to react. Sometimes they get lucky and speedboost away or back up so I come into view (or worse, accidently hit me) while I'm placing C4.

The only thing they could hypothetically do is have radar. Gunners don't matter. Gunners are equally easily distracted and focused, that's just a matter of timing the approach and staying out of sight for the C4 user.

The amount of "Extreme Menace Kills" taken out this way is huge and I wouldn't call these bad tankers. After all, all I need is two seconds in their rear. Even if they are aware of my presence, it's often not enough to do something about it. And yes, I gladly risk death in C4 suicide jump-'n-runs (see my K/D).

If you were to suggest this topic is motivated by C4, you'd be wrong btw. It's more motivated by the effects of 3D defense design and defensibility. And me ignoring 100% of defenses when I play LA.

So in that respect, what would change? Bridgefights. I currently use the support structure to jump up behind enemy units without them having any chance of seeing me approach. Particularly AMSes and heavy tanks. With the surge version, this would be a lot harder to accomplish. Especially due to terrain becoming an impediment, where it's currently an asset.

Why do you hate fun? From the "juice" suggestion and this one I get the impression that Planetside should be all about throwing yourself into a sea of grenades and never deviating from the blob or the meatgrinder. A class like LA rewards a smart and independent player who can poke holes in a defense. Is there some reason why this is worse than rewarding the type of play we currently see at the meatgrinder i.e. sprint into bullets, or hose someone sprinting into your bullets. If that was the only way to go I would not even bother with this game.

Rothnang

2013-04-13, 02:50 AM

Well, on a lot of bases the LA is a little bit too free to come in from unexpected places, and what's more damning really there are just way too many freaking hiding spots for them so the defenders are forced to constantly have their own LAs go up on the roofs and do battle with the enemies. Like in Techplants, it's just ridiculous that once someone is up on the "gundeck" roof they can just hang out there and gank people all day long. It gives the attacker a more defensible position inside the enemy base than anything the defender has. At least put a grav shaft somewhere so the defenders don't need to pull LAs just to have a chance to keep their roof clear.

Figment

2013-04-13, 04:51 AM

Cat, that is a ridiculous suggestion.

"Hate fun?"

That is like a Republican asking a Democrat "why do you hate America?" upon critique and saying "you aren't patriots". It is simply a matter of vision difference.

As I use LA constantly, without having to work to reach spots, I find la's create meatgrinders just as much as they avoid them. The attacker is the one grinding the defender's meat.

As for your comment on grenades, considering I've asked to lower the effectiveness a lot before, I'd say quite the contrary. One hit kills are cheap and ruin a lot of fun. Ganking ruins a lot of fun and one of the main units able to gank players out of nowhere is the LA. Particularly with shotgun. It discourages people from playing if they just get rolled all the time.

LA's contribute a lot to people not being able to make a stand, most people seem to underappreciate the impact of LA though.

What I find interesting is how many people think they or others couldn't live without a jetpack, yet don't seem to realise just how powerful and impacting an ability like this is. Without LA, walls and high ground would be a much greater defender's strength. Distribution of defenders would immediately be much more focused and fights would be much more push forward, push back oriented without LA. Just think of how an AMP station would change or even how currently indefensible outposts would be much harder to take. LA is the reason that a small squad can't use chokepoints in a building, because it is LA that gets behind them or uses a window against them. The main reason people don't use Galaxies a lot is LA and spawnbeacons.

See, if you think that towers would become too hard to take, you could also just say "towers would need a secondary means of getting up". The impact of high ground for defense would increase, the capacity to deal with larger differences in numbers would increase since the amount of attack vectors would be reduced.

I don't want a pure meatgrinder, but, if you would have no jetpacks, you could have more SCUs in or right next to spawnbuildings since they would not be the first thing to die anymore to LA ignoring the defenses. This would increase the importance of spec ops and stealth ops and group ops. Again, note that building design can change, an extra flight of stairs could easily be added. Just remember that for a lot of people, being able to hold, especially against odds or break a defense by good play is very rewarding and satisfying. You called LA rewarding smart play, but really, you don't have to think while using it as much as you would with other infantry.

Now, the only problem I can see is spawn beacons resulting on drops on top of buildings: but that is something you can fix with a sphere of influence.
The remainder is base design.

But go to bases like Aurora Materials Lab and look at the ways Light Assault can ignore any defensive position and how many actual practical chokepoints are left for defenders. Check how large a portion of the base is not fought over due to constant high ground positions from camping attackers.

Rothnang

2013-04-13, 05:37 AM

Figment

2013-04-13, 05:46 AM

I think this is something base design can address, like by having walls that aren't open everywhere, but instead have murderholes to fire out of without giving LAs a thousand ways inside. I mean, LAs should have maybe twice the access points as other troops, not unlimited access.

Sure murder holes limit the amount of windows an LA can enter the base through (and people can exit the base from), problem with that is that murder holes limits the freedom of movement for defenders as well and if you have a roof that can be reached, the LA can still just skip over it. You can't fire at aircraft through murder holes, you can't fire down at tanks that are moving through murder holes. You need walls with merlonned areas, but those are per definition accessible by LA.

Plus, even the murder holes that exist today are easily accessed by LA to fire inwards. Cleared many CCs that way.

There is no solution to address this sort of 3D defense against 1080º vectors from the outside. Even domes just provide LA with a camping position on top over entry points (see Bio Lab).

The only way you can funnel LA and make their jetpack relatively useless is by having indoor areas where they can't use their jump ability and have to move through the same door choke points as everyone else. But the buildings are too small and too lacking in depth and linearity to have that.

Alternatively, the only way to keep LA out of high positions is to have higher buildings than their jetpack can reach (and with the hugthewallbug I don't believe there are many places that keep LA out, just slow them down).

Rothnang

2013-04-13, 06:37 AM

I don't think people should be having particularly good success firing at aircraft out of buildings.

I mean, you pretty much never deploy a MANPAD inside of a building in real life for two main reasons:

1. A building is not bomb proof in real life, quite the opposite. If you're inside of a structure you're a huge target, way more likely to die in the blast because of falling debris, or collapsing floors.

2. Firing a rocket launcher inside of a building is a massively shitty idea because of backblast, and none of the PS2 launchers seem to have a soft launch system.

Amusingly enough, Air Defense Infantry in real life wants to be deployed in all the places that are the very worst places to be against air in PS2.

While I don't think the game needs to simulate those factors, I don't see it as a problem at all if the buildings themselves are constructed in such a way that they aren't perfect places for air defense.

Reducing the size of windows has worked pretty well for most buildings in the game so far. I don't see why it wouldn't work for the battlements of walls.

The fact that you can over the walls so easily is because Auraxis' architects are too obsessed with interesting shapes to contemplate maybe not giving attacking LAs a convenient ledge to rest on while they scale your stronghold.

BlaxicanX

2013-04-13, 06:45 AM

If LA's lost their jetpacks, the class would be even more irrelevant than it is now, which is saying something. It's already a niche class that people play basically just because. It fills no actually nescesarry role, like the Infiltrator, and unlike the holy trinity of HA/Medic/Engy.

edit- Also, lol @ LA's with C4 being "a problem" for tanks. C4'ing a tank as a Light Assault is the riskiest thing you can possibly do in this entire game, because if anyone sees you, the tank, people wandering around the tank, etc, it's completely over. You're just dead, and there's nothing you can do. Even if you get to the tank, you have to pray to God that no one sees you, or the tank driver doesn't switch to 3rd person view, because the throwing mechanics for C4 is such unwieldy ass that you can kill an LA easily in the time between laying down the C4 and actually pressing the trigger.

Yeah, 2xC4 ganks tanks, and it damn well should, because running up to a tank and trying to blow it up by hand is one of the least-efficient forms of Anti-armor out there, especially in a world where anyone can play as a Heavy Assault, and fuck up a tank from 200 yards with ease.

Sledgecrushr

2013-04-13, 06:52 AM

Not only does the la need a jetpack. But the la needs some other utility as well. This is a class that really needs some more love.

Rothnang

2013-04-13, 08:11 AM

C4'ing a tank as a Light Assault is the riskiest thing you can possibly do in this entire game, because if anyone sees you, the tank, people wandering around the tank, etc, it's completely over.

How is there any risk involved? You respawn for free when you die. The C4 is still on you if you didn't get to drop it. The only way there is any risk in this is if you MISS with your C4 and it blows up without killing the tank.

That said, I have no problem with C4 when I drive a tank, because it's avoidable. Getting killed by C4 is punishment for not paying attention, there is no situation where you get C4ed in a tank that you couldn't have avoided while still being able to join in the fight.

Figment

2013-04-13, 12:09 PM

I don't think people should be having particularly good success firing at aircraft out of buildings.

[...]

While I don't think the game needs to simulate those factors, I don't see it as a problem at all if the buildings themselves are constructed in such a way that they aren't perfect places for air defense.

Of course, just saying that this opens the buildings and bases up to any jetpacker.

Reducing the size of windows has worked pretty well for most buildings in the game so far. I don't see why it wouldn't work for the battlements of walls.

Ballustrade has a different role.

The fact that you can over the walls so easily is because Auraxis' architects are too obsessed with interesting shapes to contemplate maybe not giving attacking LAs a convenient ledge to rest on while they scale your stronghold.

Definitely a huge issue in that respect. If they just reduced the max height of the jumpjet and removed most the extra stuff on the outside of walls, it'd be a big difference already. Same with all the small ledges on building sides you can use as stepping stones.

Whiteagle

2013-04-13, 12:39 PM

What I find interesting is how many people think they or others couldn't live without a jetpack, yet don't seem to realise just how powerful and impacting an ability like this is. Without LA, walls and high ground would be a much greater defender's strength. Distribution of defenders would immediately be much more focused and fights would be much more push forward, push back oriented without LA. Just think of how an AMP station would change or even how currently indefensible outposts would be much harder to take. LA is the reason that a small squad can't use chokepoints in a building, because it is LA that gets behind them or uses a window against them.

I think this is something base design can address, like by having walls that aren't open everywhere, but instead have murderholes to fire out of without giving LAs a thousand ways inside. I mean, LAs should have maybe twice the access points as other troops, not unlimited access.
Have to agree with Roth on this point Fig.
Coming from my Second Life Military Experiance, limited boost Jump-packs are far from the worst things to deal with in FPS Base Design, such as buoyancy modifiers that allow one to bound 200 meters in the air as though they were a helium-filled balloon person.

Problem is we got a bunch of shitty prefab shacks that an art team thought LOOKED like good Bases, but never bothered to play-test these structures to see how they would work mechanically within the game.

I've got a sneaking suspicion Malorn is behind some of the overhauled layouts on the Test Server like NS Refinery, since those focus more on using simpler building assets to construct functional Shooter Maps instead of the same damn building copypasta'd in slightly different direction.

Throwing a wrench into a Light Assault's Jet-packing isn't really all that hard to do from a defensive design stand-point, you just have to put obstacles in their way that make them waste fuel.

Hell, an extra single thin wall set far enough apart from the main one that they can't jump from one top to the next will ruin their day, landing them in a no-mans-land kill-box with no immediate means of escape.

p0intman

2013-04-13, 03:57 PM

Rothnang

2013-04-13, 04:57 PM

BlaxicanX

2013-04-13, 05:25 PM

How is there any risk involved? You respawn for free when you die.

This is a video game. There is no such thing as actual risk. Oh, you don't like waiting 5 minutes for your Liberator to respawn? Who cares, it's just a game, if not's like you die IRL.

Please spare me the "no risk" argument. All risk in a game is arbitrary.

Rothnang

2013-04-13, 05:54 PM

Oh, you don't like waiting 5 minutes for your Liberator to respawn? Who cares, it's just a game, if not's like you die IRL.

I am dying in real life. We're all dying. If you get too old it's light out, so as a matter of fact, having my time wasted is fractional murder.

BlaxicanX

2013-04-13, 05:59 PM

You go to Hell when you die, so it's not so bad.

Whiteagle

2013-04-13, 06:38 PM

I actually think the PS2 base designers are doing an amazing job, most of the problems we have are in fact not caused by them doing a bad job, but them doing too good of a job with the wrong intentions.

They have kept every base pretty much entirely fair and designed every base in such a way that you can't just bottle up all comers in one spot and keep them out forever. Generally speaking it's a well implemented design for a shooter.
Uh... no... They are not.

They pretty much created Outpost by copy and pasting the same half a dozen structures in a rough circle, then plopped a Control Point and a Spawn Building down.
If we were doing Single Instance Maps with roughly 100 players, maybe that would work, but we're not...

The problem we're seeing is that when people are outnumbered they tend to go on defense, and find that they aren't really getting any serious advantage out of fighting on their home turf. That's frustrating to people because it gives you that sense that quantity beats quality way too easily in the game.
No, the problem is the Bases and the very field itself were TOO open...

Now don't get me wrong, I understand wanting to prevent turtling, but this is clearly an issue if they are putting further Continent development on hold so they can fix this.

When a Vehicle Horde can not only push in whatever direction they want on the map, but also roll though all except the most hardened of your Defenses, of course you are going to feel that it's just a Numbers game.

Is the new Lattice helping?
On a Strategic Level, YES, you can no longer avoid Points of Resistance by passively flowing around them.

But on a Tactical Level there is still much that needs to be done so that when we ARE forced to fight one another, it's more then just a contest of "Who brought the most X."