A Game of Sieges

Stardouser · 2013-03-03, 11:16 AM

My observation is that right now, PS2, at least at small bases, is a game of sieges where the defenders respawn spam and the attackers either camp, or bring overwhelming force. Large base fights are only different due to the presence of SCUs that can be taken out through good tactics.

I think the game should be nudged a little more in the direction of killing concentrations of enemy forces, instead of head to head sunderer vs fixed spawn room respawn fights for KDR. The need to get away from that is the point of the thread, the idea that follows is but one idea:

I would say one way to do this is to make it so that when a minor outpost has no adjacent territory(and therefore, no perceived connection to external resources), it should have a spawn timer penalty. This penalty should apply to Sunderers deployed within the hex by the hex owner faction. So, if for example, NC has the Crown on Jaeger-son, as we usually do, if we just sit there camping for KDR not caring whether we hold adjacent territory, then what will happen is that from both sunderers and the spawn room at the Crown we will have a doubled or perhaps even tripled respawn timer. This will allow the attackers to systematically surround the Crown (or any other minor outpost) then flush out the defenders with the respawn timer advantage.

I know that such a thing would cheese off the people who only want to camp for KDR in long siege-fights, but what is the point of a big game world if it focuses the fights in 20% of a single continent?

Koadster · 2013-03-03, 12:36 PM

Removing kdr will change some peoples minds and not being so scared to charge. I'll making a thread tomoz of why kdr fosters bad sportsmanship.

Your idea sounds good. It would also be quicker to implement then a ntu system in the short term only problem is if ur holding out a base against many odds the defenders will be penalized excluding the crown. Also strength in numbers, because vehicles are so easy to pull.. why not pull 100 tanks because you can. Hopefully the new coming lattice systems will fix it a bit since an equal force will be needing to push out from the base that is getting attacked. So there will be 'ps1' style bat tles not just zergs running around eachother.

zulu · 2013-03-03, 01:07 PM

I think this is a very astute observation of one of the problems with the game right now. I'd say that this is probably the biggest thing that irks me in PS2, especially since the server mergers (at least on SolTech prior to the mergers, I was able to find the occasional smaller fight that wasn't just a curbstomp). I think the most fun I've had in the game is usually in small-base fights between small numbers (10-on-10, probably) of attackers and defenders. You feel important as an individual, single tanks, fighters, and gunships have big roles -- it's basically the perfect setup, I think, despite how much of the game is sold on it being huge (and those parts are fun, too).

I'd say there are a couple of aspects to the problem:
1) Battles tend to be very one-sided. Either the attackers bring a huge zerg that will overwhelm the defenders in minutes, or the defenders reinforce in huge numbers, destroy the attackers' sunderers, and the battle ends quickly.
2) People just hang around the spawn room. Defenders keep spawning there long after the battle is effectively decided while attackers camp outside of it. This is also true of vehicles.
3) Map-play has little or no value.
All of these factors combine to form the current problem. There are a lot of ways to address these individual issues, but I'll just mention what I think would work best.

In order to counter (1), I think there needs to be a better alert system. "TI Alloys is under attack!" (perhaps triggered when a certain number of enemies enter the hex, and perhaps also when the control timer is reduced to a certain level). Responding to this alert by defending the hex would net the player a larger experience bonus (perhaps reducing the experience bonus as more players start to defend). This would do two things: It would allow defenders to better respond to threats, but it might also spread defenders out more. This might help give more value to diversionary attacks and spread out the attacking zerg.

Also (and I'm a little surprised this isn't in the game right now) but there really should be some amount of defensive XP award -- the same as the capture XP. Give some additional incentive to defending. I know the devs probably want an offensively-oriented game, but it seems to me that unless they're defending at a place like the Crown, everyone seems to favor offense.

(2) Is probably the hardest to solve. I've suggested what you've suggested before -- surrounding a base could lengthen the spawn timer -- but the response I've gotten is that this might give the attackers (who already spawn quicker than the defenders, though I suppose usually they need to move farther in order to engage) too much of an advantage. Still, I like it.

I think another good idea would be to change the influence tracker depending on how many defenders are in the hex. So if the attackers vastly outnumber the defenders, the battle will be over much quicker.

Last, I think some of the reason attackers just hang out around the base is because, if they leave, they won't be getting the capture XP. I'd suggest awarding capture XP to whoever spent more than a short amount of time in the hex. If you spend, say, two minutes in the hex, you can move on and receive the capture XP.

Hopefully some combination of the above would both speed up lopsided battles and generate more evenly-matched battles.

Stardouser · 2013-03-03, 01:21 PM

I think KDR is a big part of it, but at the same time even if you convinced every KDR player to attack a flag instead of camping, it would still be overwhelmed by the current zerg respawn defense vs zerg respawn attack playstyle.

Originally Posted by zulu

(2) Is probably the hardest to solve. I've suggested what you've suggested before -- surrounding a base could lengthen the spawn timer -- but the response I've gotten is that this might give the attackers (who already spawn quicker than the defenders, though I suppose usually they need to move farther in order to engage) too much of an advantage. Still, I like it.

Well, here's the thing...if attacking and capturing was easier insofar as defenders spawning at a base were concerned, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It would force defenders to spawn elsewhere and pull tank columns, ESF/Lib squadrons, etc to knock the besiegers off from behind. Also, it would cause people to think a little bit more about where they are going to move after they finish the current capture - the game would be more about movement through the map than sieging.

This will expand the scope of this thread a bit but one thing I really wish we could do would be stretch the map 300%. That is, consider the distance between Crossroads and Crown. Something like 500 meters right? Someone spawning a tank at either place doesn't have to move much to start shelling the other. AA turrets and MAXes can each all the way across. I wish we could make that 1500 meters, literally stretch the map to 24 X 24 and keep all the bases in their relative positions. This would mean that armor convoys would have to travel out in the open where base AA can't protect them, where there won't be AA MAXes unless they bring them. This would make the game more about troop movements than campsieges I think, it would enhance the aerial game, it would provide more prestige for infantry squads that set ambushes out in the countryside between bases, etc.

I know there may or may not be technical considerations for blowing it up to 24 x 24km but I really think that's where we should be.

MaxDamage · 2013-03-03, 01:54 PM

KDR exists, it is a valid measurement.
How people use or reference it is their own damn business.

Stop trying to tell other people how to enjoy their game and focus on YOUR OWN.

Stardouser · 2013-03-03, 02:13 PM

Also, I was looking at the Roadmap entry for SCUs. http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...-timers.82696/

Instead of having ONE SCU which when destroyed shuts off spawns, have between 3 and 5. At the Crown for example, there could be 3. It could work like this:

Crown Standard Respawn timer: 10 seconds (including sunderers deployed in Crown hex by owning faction)
No adjacent territory: +8 seconds
1 destroyed SCU: +5 seconds
2 destroyed SCU: +10
3 destroyed SCU: +15

So, capture the surround territory and kill all 3 SCUs and the defenders at the Crown go from 10 second respawn to 33. Want it to be shorter? Go capture a nearby hex, or send an organized squad to repair SCUs.

They could also make it so that multiple Sunderers deployed together(as in, actually touching each other) have a shorter respawn, kind of like a Forward Base. This basically means that there's a high resource cost and high organizational cost to achieve it.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-03-03, 02:18 PM

I like the long sieges. I enjoy the fierce inch by inch blood soaked advance across broken war machines. This kind of fighting is what I enjoy the most.

HereticusXZ · 2013-03-03, 04:54 PM

I don't like the idea of penalizing the spawn within a Facility.

Sieges happen in war, If you're defending a facility behind enemy lines then you have no supply cycle to support your defense, you have a limited amount of MAX' to field, C4, Claymores, so on etc. Just like a real siege your fall becomes a matter of time unless you can fight your way out or reinforcements reconnect you to the homeland.

Same applies to a SCU, Lights and computers won't work without electricity, why would a Spawn work without a SCU or a Generator? Penalizing the spawn timer in favor of removing the ability to spawn when the SCU is destroyed, I believe hurts the need/interest to Defend the facility.

If you have the ability to spawn and use stuff at a facility even if the enemy destroys the SCU, then what's the point of defending a facility beyond resources? I believe the SCU allowing/denying the ability to spawn period is a good incentive to defend a facility.

Stardouser · 2013-03-03, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by HereticusXZ

I don't like the idea of penalizing the spawn within a Facility.

Sieges happen in war, If you're defending a facility behind enemy lines then you have no supply cycle to support your defense, you have a limited amount of MAX' to field, C4, Claymores, so on etc. Just like a real siege your fall becomes a matter of time unless you can fight your way out or reinforcements reconnect you to the homeland.

Same applies to a SCU, Lights and computers won't work without electricity, why would a Spawn work without a SCU or a Generator? Penalizing the spawn timer in favor of removing the ability to spawn when the SCU is destroyed, I believe hurts the need/interest to Defend the facility.

If you have the ability to spawn and use stuff at a facility even if the enemy destroys the SCU, then what's the point of defending a facility beyond resources? I believe the SCU allowing/denying the ability to spawn period is a good incentive to defend a facility.

So you're saying that SCU should simply be on/off, not higher spawn timer? Well, I personally am OK with that. But SOE has apparently received feedback against that, so unfortunately a compromise has to be given. And I think we all have an idea of the type of player that doesn't want it.

Maybe we could still do 3 generators but without a spawn timer penalty, you just have to kill all 3 to shut the spawns off? The theme here though, is that these sieges aren't necessary because defenders are organized or anything but simply because they are respawn spamming and are close to the objectives. I would NEVER want to see a global spawn timer penalty attached to individual players for dying repeatedly, so I figured SCUs was the only way to do this.

zulu · 2013-03-03, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Well, here's the thing...if attacking and capturing was easier insofar as defenders spawning at a base were concerned, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It would force defenders to spawn elsewhere and pull tank columns, ESF/Lib squadrons, etc to knock the besiegers off from behind. Also, it would cause people to think a little bit more about where they are going to move after they finish the current capture - the game would be more about movement through the map than sieging.

Well, I'd agree. Let's see what happens when/if the new map system gets implemented. That might help control the flow better, too.

This will expand the scope of this thread a bit but one thing I really wish we could do would be stretch the map 300%.

I think the technical problems associated with this would be too much, yes, but also I think expanding the maps too much actually makes big zergs even more important, since it's even less likely to find a decent fight by yourself or with a small group.

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I like the long sieges. I enjoy the fierce inch by inch blood soaked advance across broken war machines. This kind of fighting is what I enjoy the most.

I enjoy it, too, but I find that it's much rarer than curbstomp battles ending with the defenders getting camped at their spawn point and then taking potshots outward. That's the opposite of fun.

There have to be ways to increase the number of relatively even battles while limiting the amount of time spent in lopsided ones.

Originally Posted by HereticusXZ

Sieges happen in war, If you're defending a facility behind enemy lines then you have no supply cycle to support your defense, you have a limited amount of MAX' to field, C4, Claymores, so on etc. Just like a real siege your fall becomes a matter of time unless you can fight your way out or reinforcements reconnect you to the homeland.

Yes, sieges do happen. But right now there's very little penalty to it for the defenders. MAXes are basically invulnerable for as long as they stay near engineers and medics, and while C4, claymores, grenades, etc. are all important on an individual basis, ultimately a defense can easily get over their absence by just spawning more soldiers.

Same applies to a SCU, Lights and computers won't work without electricity, why would a Spawn work without a SCU or a Generator? Penalizing the spawn timer in favor of removing the ability to spawn when the SCU is destroyed, I believe hurts the need/interest to Defend the facility.

The problem with the system as it is now is that a battle is pretty much over once the SCU is taken out. There's really nothing the defenders can do at that point other than truck in reinforcements from somewhere else (not going to happen -- too much effort, too little reward). Personally, I think that works for the most part, but it does cut short a lot of battles.

If you have the ability to spawn and use stuff at a facility even if the enemy destroys the SCU, then what's the point of defending a facility beyond resources? I believe the SCU allowing/denying the ability to spawn period is a good incentive to defend a facility.

What's the point of defending a facility right now? The main reason is that you spawn close to the enemy, so you can shoot them faster and so get more XP without having to do boring stuff like run towards the outpost or get in a Galaxy. That's why people like defending the Crown -- it's easy to defend and so easy to earn certs. There's action. It's exciting.

And that's fine, despite what a lot of people around here seem to think. The problem is that the devs need to ask how they can make the other parts of the game more exciting and less boring. And right now a lot of the base fights really are pretty boring: Get overwhelmed, take potshots at the enemy, spawn somewhere else eight minutes later. Ho hum.