Gameplay: [Idea] Garrison Duty

Whiteagle · 2012-09-15, 11:41 PM

If there is one thing that I find most irksome about Planetside 2 right now, it is that most facilities on the map are completely deserted...
As someone who has both single-handily captured several territories with only a Flash and had the same thing happen to his own side just because no one was "minding the register", I find this rather appalling.

At first I attributed this to low player populations but, thinking about it, there just isn't any incentive for most players to sit around in places supposedly "far" from the action.

So, I came up with that incentive, the "Garrison Duty" mechanic!

Basically, it's sort-of like the Mission System, a player "signs on" to guard a specific base, getting a small stipend of Experience Points for their trouble as well as bonuses of extra XP and Auraxium if they successfully defend their location from.
They would also probably have access to an "Alert" Voice Command that would sound an "X is under attack" message at adjacent friendly bases and the Warpgate.

Now, the amount of Experience gained will probably need to vary depending on certain factors, such as number of people signed up at a base (in order to encourage players to spread themselves out across their Faction's territory) or the base's proximity to Enemy controlled hexes (So that the front-lines can be properly manned).

Of course, such a system will no doubt be abused by idle farmers...
...But at least it would both get them out of the Warpgates and wring some use out of them as Decoys.

With the new changes to the Certification system, I think this would be a great way for those who don't yet feel up to clashing head-on with other Factions or simply have tired of a hectic environment of the battlefield to gain some extra XP, not to mention the boon it would give to active defenders.

Dagron · 2012-09-16, 04:09 AM

I think the biggest issue would be the afk farmers as you put.
Other than that i agree that it's a little weird not having people guarding bases and a little lame to constantly take territories behind the enemy's back without any challenge (i do it, but i'd rather not have the opportunity... it's not as fun as putting some effort into it, but it's just too tempting to be able to draw the enemy's attention from the front lines and get XP in the process without having to actually work for it).
That said, i think this is one of the things they're trying to solve with the upcoming changes to capture mechanics and timers.

Gugabalog · 2012-09-16, 08:23 AM

I like this idea but am not sure of it in it's current form. Def a step in the right direction though.

Baneblade · 2012-09-16, 11:54 AM

AFK farmers wouldnt be an issue, since they would die if the facility was attacked and lose what they were trying to farm.

Whiteagle · 2012-09-16, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

AFK farmers wouldnt be an issue, since they would die if the facility was attacked and lose what they were trying to farm.

Indeed, smart idlers would take up positions far away from the action, and even then they are only gaining additional Experience points.

Those that do camp at more active facilities would hopefully have enough sense to hide themselves so they wouldn't just die, and would at least be providing an extra body for the ticker.

Hell, even those idlers at otherwise deserted bases could be of use if non-suicide or friendly-fire deaths automatically triggered the "X is under attack" message.

Ikeda · 2012-09-16, 01:27 PM

I was actually sticking around and guarding a base all day for about a week on East 01 a few days back when NC's territory was still the north side of the map. Problem is I was getting about 1/3 or less of the amount of auraxium and certs I was getting when I was actively capping bases. The current game mechanics punish you for playing defensively. It needs to be fixed.

AssaultSugar · 2012-09-16, 03:39 PM

I have a smiliar but different idea for this

NPC bot garrisons

I dont feel like going into full detail but in a nutshell a group of bots (numbers vary depending on base in question) that are good enough to stop 1 or a handful of random players from taking entire bases but will be slaughtered when pitted organized players

Baneblade · 2012-09-16, 03:59 PM

Yeah, no NPCs.

AssaultSugar · 2012-09-16, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Yeah, no NPCs.

care to elaborate why? I dont have a BETA key but from most gameplay footage I've/player accounts seems like no one wants to defend anything....

Baneblade · 2012-09-16, 04:03 PM

All your bots would do is further convince players not to defend.

AssaultSugar · 2012-09-16, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

All your bots would do is further convince players not to defend.

How so?

Dagron · 2012-09-17, 12:13 AM

If people don't bother defending a place that has no passive defenses, i imagine they would worry even less about a base that has bots.
Also, the devs already told us they don't want to put any kind of NPC in this game. PS2 is PvP all the way.

AssaultSugar · 2012-09-17, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Dagron

If people don't bother defending a place that has no passive defenses, i imagine they would worry even less about a base that has bots.
Also, the devs already told us they don't want to put any kind of NPC in this game. PS2 is PvP all the way.

as I said its to stop 1 or 2 random from taking entire bases but organized groups will just roll over them....

it should help with all this whack-a-mole which people are complaining about

Salad Snake · 2012-09-17, 04:52 AM

I think it'd really add to the immersion of the game, as well as adding a roleplaying aspect (which in itself would add to immersion as well), but it'd take a lot of brainstorming and discussion to come up with a working system for this. Not to mention coding...

Dagron · 2012-09-17, 12:41 PM

Like i said, right now people don't defend bases that are completely helpless, they will worry even less about bases if they get even the slightest forms of defense. That's what they're trying to avoid.
Many people are against bots, even dumb ones that could only take on 1 or 2 players, because they want the empires to have to worry about all their bases, that gives more strategic choices if done properly. I think the devs are still trying to find that proper way to do it.

As long as it doesn't stay the ridiculous game of cat and mouse that is currently happening, i feel that "sneaky" capping should be allowed. I think that's why they're making the timers longer and adding base under attack warnings - precisely to solve the whack-a-mole issue without completely ending the option for squads to be specialized in behind enemy lines attacks.