Bio Lab flow

[Figment]

Reddit: http://redd.it/171x6q
PS2 forums: http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...evision.82464/




EDIT: Sinking the Bio Lab a bit may help and may provide new options!


SOI = spawn beacon prevention
SOI gen = generator that powers SOI


Rings represent defense perimeters and logistical travel distances.

Note that in the right hand diagram, the flow is more linear. Every ring has some sort of option for spec ops to make the fight for the previous/next ring become easier (depending on defensive (next step: creating a plug) or offensive (previous step: removing a plug) perspective).

On the left hand side, teleporters are in the control of the outpost owner (thus hardly ever the keep defenders - these are never used by defenders). In the right hand side diagram, the defenders and attackers can use the teleporters to cut logistical distance, once both sides are acquired. Taking either end blocks all traffic through the teleporters.

The right hand side has no jumppads from outpost to base. There could be jumppads, but over short distances to get from CY to Wall, or from the CY to the keep ascent level.

On the right hand side, the outposts cannot be used to ignore the walls and CY, rather, they form staging grounds to attack the walls and CY, from which the keep will be assaulted. This means that defenders can fight for the CY to protect the keep. Attackers can use Gal Drops to try and bypass the CY defenders.

Note the length differences of the wall as well and that on the right hand side the wall is complete, with 1 or 2 less entrances. A smaller CY is easier to defend, especially if attackers can scale them all around.

The SCU is right next to the spawn building. Once the SCU gen is down, the SCU can be attacked. If it falls, the spawns lose their shield. Attackers can then stsart using the airpad choke points to their advantage.

A single CC is used so both defense can focus on holding or resecuring that and try to seal/plug attack routes at the choke points, while attackers have to keep attack routes open (TP CCs and airpad control). Single Gal Drops and spec ops attacks resecure attempts would become possible once more by breaking through the airpad defense, get to the CC (instant resecure vs timer hold) or getting the SCU up and sealing off teleport routes by capturing either end.







The flow of the right hand side diagram should be far more natural (less confusing) and result in clear siege stages that can be walked in both offensive and defensive direction. The role of the Galaxy as a paratroop dropship and Sunderer as gate crasher (get into CY and reach gens, capture teleport C2 to stop ground vehicle acquisition) would increase significantly. The walls should become a lot more used than currently, since defenders require less troops at the actual keep during the CY siege (which makes a gal drop even more viable as less troops would be encountered inside). This also should increase the role of infiltrators as saboteurs and path creators (dome teleport control captures especially).


Thoughts/Questions?

[Gatekeeper]

Pretty interesting, and looks good overall - but it's hard to be sure what the effect of making so many changes all at once would have. I'd say it'd be a good idea to split it up into a series of smaller changes and apply those one at a time, with pauses in-between to review.

I particularly like the idea of gantries and stairs on the outside of the base, that seems like it might make for some interesting fights.

And I definitely agree about having to take both ends of the teleporters, that's something I was thinking about suggesting myself.

ATM it seems like Biolab fights are overly focussed around camping the teleporter exits and landing pads - so I'd definitely like to see some changes to encourage a more dynamic fight over a larger area.

[J Baley]

This is all pretty cool and well thought out. I really love the idea of the stairs and catwalks. It would be fantastic to see some/all of this implemented.

[Figment]

I'm really against smaller changes, because stand alone such changes simply won't work. I'm designing these flows as a package with balances and counter balances based on a principle of starting and ending points of stages and the fight as a whole. Small changes would create some of the necessary steps, but without the other changes, they will not have any effect and could even be counter-productive. :/


Say you ONLY reduce the CY size with respect to the current situation. Will it do anything positive? No: people will still ignore the CY fight entirely, because they can ignore the CY fight by using the teleporters and jumppads.

In fact, in that particular "gradual change scenario", it would become easier for the enemy to control the entire CY: Since there's no improvement in infantry flow linking keep and CY and putting the focus of the fight on this gradual battle, the attackers would not just get the CY control completely free of charge, they'd now only have to cover a smaller area, with the same amount of troops.


If you would just do the SOI generator, people would still ignore the CY since the jumppads and teleporters are there, they'd simply use less spawn beacons till the CY (as illustrated above) is captured by routine and all its gens destroyed.


If you would just do the infantry keep-CY flow improvement, without adjusting the CY size, the CY would still not be manageable, even if it would be easier. But once more, the teleporters and jumppads would dominate the fight. You can't afford to go halfway down the keep if the attackers appear above and behind you constantly.


If you would just do the teleporters, the only increased usefulness of gal drops would be a slightly stronger push compared to jumppads to try and capture a teleporter.


If you would do just the CC reduction to one, defenders would still have to control 6 entry points (teleporters count as two each) and would still be completely swamped with no means of creating defensive focus and still could not get out of the base.


If you would do just the SCU, this would primarily be an advantage to attackers who can deny defenders to respawn or hold the spawns as last stand. Defenders would still be swamped and running around like mad trying to whack-a-mole in the Dome.



No, they have to come as a package.

[Gatekeeper]

Well, I understand what you're saying - but we've often seen in the past that SOE making a whole bunch of changes together often ends up in causing unpredictable and undesirable outcomes.

One of the things I like about the dev team's current approach is their willingness to make small tweaks more often, rather than super-patches every now and again. It gives people a chance to get used to the changes, and means they don't end up over-nerfing/buffing any particular play-style.

So my preference would still be for a series of smaller changes that can work together, but which could also be trialled one at a time. I appreciate that would require a bit of a different approach, but I think it would be more likely to actually get implemented by the dev team, and would be easier for people to discuss properly on the forums.

That said, I do like your ideas a lot, so don't take this as too big a criticism

[Dougnifico]

I would love to see this. Devs... Go!

[Hamma]

Someone get the Clegg in here!

[SeraphC]

If the catwalks would reduce the isolation of the battle inside I would be all for it. A strong defending force inside the base should be able to project that strength more towards the immediate area outside of the base. Currently that is hardly possible.

[Figment]

Btw, to reduce the polygon need for the entire building (apparently stairs would require too many) and since according to Higby it would take 3 minutes to get to the top, it would be possible to consider lowering the support structure of the dome in size and reduce some of the random parts sticking out here. This would also reduce the steep angle of the legs (and maybe shorten them a bit), allowing one to use these as ramps.

[Binkley]

You could make all of the suggested changes at once and still have it be a "small tweak" by only changing one of the bio-labs on one continent.

[Canaris]

always thought a gantry or ramp system up into the biolabs was a good idea that could work, the flow of combat into them is a bit strange with all the uncontestable choke points created by going up a energy lift or being thrown over by the splaterpault.

[Stanis]

I see what you're trying to do.
One thing that concerns me with any idea is that we are still trying to defend multiple insecure points simultaneously.

For the defenders there is definitely a priority in the shield generator and spawn generators.

However it is a game of pillar to post covering
Spawn Gen.
Shield Gen.
Capture points A through C - possibly D.
CY
Walls
Air Approach.
Vehicle approach.
1 to 4 satellite bases or towers
Spawn Beacons/Spawn on Squad Leader/Deploy Now button

Which are spread out over a vast area. Any movement bonuses can also be used by the enemy (jump pads) or subverted by them (telepads)

If we have layers - then we need to peel a layer before the next is genuinely vulnerable. Most targets require a single attacker to effect their destruction.
For an even sized force that means flitting between all of the above stamping out fires.

It is dynamic in the sense forces are always in motion.
It's fairly ludicrous in the sense of defence advantage or force multipliers.

There is very little chance of covering so many objectives in such a large area. There is no grand tactic or clever strategy that works.
Organisation helps.

It is just numbers.

[MaxDamage]

Stairs?

Stairs?!!?

[Boomzor]

Originally Posted by MaxDamage

Stairs?

Stairs?!!?

They've been doing their inteded job for thousands of years. Don't act so surprised

[Canaris]

Originally Posted by MaxDamage

Stairs?

Stairs?!!?

I suppose they could add an escalator too if you ask extra nice