ReachCast Community Question #81 - Do you prefer single or multi-point bases?

[Deringer]

This week's ReachCast Community question is ...

"Do you prefer fighting over single or multi-point bases?"

As always, respond here or e-mail us at [email protected] or call us at (415)787-3224!

[Dougnifico]

Honestly depends purely on base design. Some are good for 1, some are good for like 5.

For instance, Amp Station - 1. For Bio Lab - 3. Works well.

[Vanir]

I like the Amp stations with the multies, fights in them can get pretty amazing, same with Bio Labs, I can't see it being done with Tech plants though unless they were redesigned to be more enclosed.

[KesTro]

It's my personal belief that -NO- base should have only one cap point. Way too easy to sit a zerg of 60 guys on a single point. With multiple points all of a sudden you have to disperse that 60 so it becomes more manageable on either front.

[libbmaster]

More = better, especially with player counts this size.

Unless that one point has like, six paths in and is situated in one of those warehouse buildings we see on amerish.

Otherwise to facilitate the size of the battles we have in PS2 I think three points should be the minimum.

[Timithos]

I'm for more everything everywhere. More cap points, more generators, more shields. New hackable control consoles that control turrets, ammo towers, etc. More everything. I wish they'd stop dumbing down the game.

[Dougnifico]

I'm not for more everything when it comes to stuff like cap points. I'm for more interesting ways to take a base. Perhaps filling the timer from the cap points unlocks the central control terminal that must be hacked and held. The battle would end with a mad rush that central point. The defenders would have to take points back and drain the timer to keep attackers from taking the base.

[Azzzz]

A little off topic but I would seriously be in favor of something other than capturing points. Hold a hacked term, have a player run around within the base perimeter with an item he/she has to hold while the timer ticks down, etc. Just....give me something other than a point. Do one base like that and see what the feedback is. What do you have to lose?

The question response is...a little of both is fine.

[camycamera]

i prefer having different ways to capture bases all together.

edit: oops, old thread.

[Figment]

Old thread, but still relevant. Still prefer One cap point IMO, since multi-points are far too hard to defend.


Of course, the cap point should be far closer to the spawns than to the enemy and not in the open field so a Lib could bomb it...

Large groups of enemies wouldn't be a problem if the capture point would be securable like in PS1: instant reset (the amount of times I snuck through 50-90 people and resecured is plenty).



The main problem with dealing with large zergs is that there's no such thing as attrition: Ammo packs don't run out (so they don't need to switch to side arms and can support indefinitely). Medics don't run out of healing and reviving power (they did in PS1, so you could thin out larger groups far more easily with hit and run or pressing). Small groups (of defenders/attackers) are reliant on respawns anyway and don't need to share the amount of healing and repairs as much either, so they wouldn't suffer as much from this attrition as large groups would.

And also that (equipment) consoles actually turn sides (making them repairable by attackers and unusable by defenders), rather than opened for a short time (like in PS1), which would create a more permanent reliability on infiltrators than one time turning.