That damn Matrixing idea.

[�io]

Yeah matrix + less bases could be cool.

I just want them to do something so that.

1- Capping bases is important, not just a BEP boost.

2- Capping unmaned bases = less important than capping maned bases.

[Kaikou]

Well, I personally don't like that idea.. (the said idea in the first post that is) because many very good strategies could be pulled off by taking bases on either side of an objective and attacking from more than one side at once. It'd kinda bring fighting tactics back to things like the civil war where you just got 2 huge formations of guys and threw them at each other. It enhances the gameplay by allowing bases not on the front line to be taken. I'm sure all you BF1942 players (and probably other games alike) have found that having a spawn point on the north AND south point of the enemy is a lot more effective than having 2 bases to the north OR south.

My 2 cents

[Headrattle]

I am with Kaiko here.

I think that bigger advantages of holding a base should be evident. Right now the advantages are kida small, so no one wants to take them. If the advantages were increased there would be more of a need to protect them.

I also would like base detection/warning to be implemented. more then those dots of fire on the map anyway.

[BlakkyZ8]

cut down the number of bases from the 10-15 they have in each continent to liek 4-6 making it so that each base has a real importance and if they do this then make each base mean something

Well when the population goes up this may not be as much of an issue, but I am partial to the matrixing idea...

[Homicide]

Hmmmm....... How about we all just agreee never to cap a base. If we could get everyone to do that there would be no problem.

[Duffman]

shut up noob

but even with the increase population i still think that we will need less bases. Right now bases mean NOTHING. why is this? Its because everyone just wants BEPS and wants to cap bases. There is no point in defending a base because you get no BEPs from it unless someone attacks and thats wont happen becuase everyone has sucha wide range of bases that why should you cap teh one with people in it and not the on without defenders.

When the game comes out the problem will still exsist because still no one will want to defend a base.

IM not sure the matrix is the best silution but i know the gmae will not make it for long the way it is.

[Homicide]

Duffman i really don't apreciate that.

[Shadowsword8]

Duffman, you should think twice before calling someone a noob. Even if Homicide's joke isn't very fun, your reaction is excessive and inadequate.

[BigTony]

BTW guys heres something from SmokeJumper

SmokeJumperPS
Station Admin posted 04-23-2003 08:26 PM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a matrix system in tomorrow's patch. We put our own spin on it, of course.
Details coming tomorrow.

[Vis Armata]

This matrix concept is a little too complex. Keep it simple, stupid. Or so I hear. Really, do you think that having the entire Terran (I'm partial to the TR) force on Cyssor defending one base will make the game more fun than its current state? I think it would be worse, actually. If the defense of one key base was rock-solid - leaving people no option on the continent - people would get frustrated quick.

Minor tweaks may do it, like some BEP for extended defense by a hacking squad (think 15-30 min defense). So would the addition of a couple thousand more people - some people will just end up defending bases.

Another thing that could happen is that the more mature players could try to form defensive squads when there's little going on. Try to get across that this isn't CS after all, and there really is value to keeping a base, even if its not for points alone. Seriously, I think the whining is worse than the problem. We as a community could simply just stay put and defend a base. How hard is that, really?

[Groovinator]

ok first of all there is an incentive to defend a base that is being hacked. Granted they aren't huge incentives but they are still viable. The first incentive is to deny the enemy easy BEP. The second incentive is to keep the base. The real problem lies in the fact that defending a base has less incentive than taking a base. I think this could be easily solved by a few implementations. First thing that jumps out at me is give a BEP modifier for kills within a friendly base's SOI. Second make the time for caps increase the further you are from the nearest friendly base. Third, a tower to be taken before a base cap. These are half baked ideas that took less than 5 minutes to form. I am not fond of the idea of forcing people to fight in specific places. Encourage them? Yes go for it. Force? Never.

[TheSHiFT]

give extra BEP for defending ect. wont work. What happens when ppl start to hit BR20, BEP are useless now, so yea they might hold a (as of now) worthless base for awhile. But soon they will get bored and relize how pointless it is, not only to play, but pay to play as well. This is the only major flaw of the game, but it does have to change, so ill take the Matrix system over the current crap any day.

[Sarah Jinstar]

The whole problem is not getting BEP or benifits for actively defending. Or make defending certain bases have advantages etc. If/Once this is solved it should in theroy solve the cap cap cap issue we're seeing now. Otherwise the game will get pretty stale a month or 2 down the line.