| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
 |
| Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
2012-04-10, 07:17 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #1 | ||
|
First Lieutenant
|
I've been bouncing this idea around in my head for a while now, what do you guys think?
The Why Now that home continents and cont locks are gone PS2 might be missing some sense of priority on attack and defense. Why is it more important to defend hex A than hex B? What could force an empire to shift the bulk of its forces to a different target, either on offense or defense? The obvious answer is resources, and while they'll play an important role in this I'm not convinced they'll be enough on their own. Even if they are, it can't hurt to have another layer of priorities on top to add to the strategic side of the game, another layer of reasons for empires to respond to different threats with a varying sense of urgency. And I think this idea would add another layer of 'mini win conditions' to the game, goals that give a real sense of accomplishment at the end, more than just taking another hex. The kind of offensive and defensive goals that can really bring an empire together. The old system of cont locks and home continents tried to do this, and in some ways it succeeded (but not without some pretty glaring problems that probably contributed to their removal). The What What I'm proposing is a sort of progression for bases (bio labs, tech plants etc). Lets say the TR capture tech plant Leza, it reverts to its standard form; level 1. Over the next few days (or weeks, the time scale isn't important right now) the base progresses up to level 5. Each level brings changes in appearance, at level 1 it's a standard tech plant with red markings, at level 2 maybe a few TR banners appear in the courtyard, at level 3 a couple TR flags appear and the red markings become more prominent etc. Each level could also make the base a little more powerful, or increase the resources it generates. Maybe at a certain level ES turrets start to replace the NS ones, there's lots of possibilities. At level 5 the base has become a TR fortress, it's turned into a kind of symbol for the empire. At this point it's got very prominent markings, flags, banners, maybe the walls and buildings themselves have changed slightly to be more in line with the TR style. Maybe there's even a special TR fortress theme that plays inside its SOI. Besides the morale it generates the increased resources it's putting out also make it a prime target for the other empires, while the TR obviously want to defend it for the same reasons. Losing it would be a big loss for the TR and a big blow to morale, while taking it would be a great victory for the NC or VS. The important thing is that the base itself hasn't become more powerful (or at least not much more), the fact that it's become important to the TR as an empire, that the TR will drop whatever they're doing to defend it, is what makes taking it harder. If the VS do manage to capture it the base reverts to a level 1 tech plant, now in VS hands, and process starts over. Again, the idea is to give people meaningful targets to attack and defend, beyond what resources can offer. Because at the end of the day meaningful victories, either on offense or defense, are what make competition fun. The How From a game design standpoint there's lots of things to consider with a system like this, here's a few that come to mind:
And on and on, there's lots of room for ideas and lots for Higby to think about 
|
||
|
|
|
2012-05-04, 05:26 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #2 | |||||||
|
Brigadier General
|
I think that having a variety of solutions to keep the game fresh, dynamic and engaging is a good thing.
I like this idea (but unfortunately missed it until now). It has the potential to create a lot of motivation to defend, while seeming to be pretty easy to keep balanced. One point I did note is that there doesn't seem to be as much of a sense of reason to attack these targets as there is to defend them, beyond denying the enemy their fortress or the general taking of territory/controlling resources. While I think the idea of the bases resetting when they flip sides is good and essential, I also think it would be good if the attackers received a larger than usual bonus of resources for taking the fortress. Just that extra little bit of incentive to make the fortress fights bloody and intense. My thoughts on your points of The How:
--- There have been quite a few ideas kicked around these forums for adding various bonuses for holding certain territories and things of that nature. I think a lot of these ideas could be easily mixed and matched, and provide a lot of depth to the game while not making it any harder for new players to jump in and start fighting. As it stands, the only real reason to hold territory is to keep getting resources from it, denying the enemy from getting those resources, and holding on to as much territory as possible. While those aren't bad places to start, I like that this idea would essentially reward players for holding on to territory as long as possible. Even if a level 3 base only gave 10% more of x resource than it normally did, it would still give more incentive to hold onto it than there would be if you could just take it back, especially since losing and retaking a base will already give you a bonus injection of resources. If there were a limit of one level 5 fortress per continent, it would create an interesting dynamic. The usual place to put it would probably be right near your empires foothold, to hold it in reserve as a last line of defense in case the enemy tried to push you off the continent. More bold players may try to place it in the middle of the map, as a giant fuck you to the other two empires, a challenge to all, establishing their dominance on a continent. How long it takes for a base to upgrade is unimportant to the merits of the idea, but would be critical in successfully implementing it in the game. How ever long it takes, there should be mandatory time limits that prevent an empire from skipping ahead and upgrading more quickly. For example, if it takes 12 hours to upgrade every level, there should be no way to bypass this and get to level 5 in under 48 hours. successfully holding a hard to hold base for the required amount of time should be a victory in it's own right, even if the empire lost it soon after. Obviously we will need to get our hands on the game to see how much these types of idea will truly be wanted or needed, but I think it's a good idea to start building up these ideas now so that we can quickly picture what improvements may work best in PS2's framework. Sorry I missed earlier, it's an interesting read and I think a pretty good idea. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
2012-05-04, 10:34 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #3 | ||
|
Private
|
Yes yes! Although i would like to add something, you see for some reason people like this strange thing called democracy so for major decisions like where to put something a whole democracy system would need to be placed, or an admin could take care of it.
If lvl 5 bases has quite good defenses i don't think i would've kept it near the foothold, its impossible to capture anyways. So keeping one of the empires back with it would be better if the other empire steamrolls you. Thus the pressure on the advancing empire would only increase and the pressure on your two footholds would decrease until the your empire could gather up enough people to go on a counter-push. I would also like to add that lvl 5 fortresses that are captured should not revert to lvl one just as lvl 4 and 3 should not either. If lvl 5 reverted to lvl 4? 3? and lvl 4 and three would revert to 3 and 2? I mean that would give a small incentive to capture high lvl areas, just reverting an area from lvl 5 to 1 would be counter-productive who would want to capture it? Except if you add outside finances like for instance granting x amount of resources to the victor of such a fortress. If that would be the case, perhaps giving around the same amount of resources the fortress costs in the first place would be a good place to start. It all really depends, say lvl 1 areas are areas where you can capture with mechanized units as well, 2 is a so-so some units can be used and some not. lvl 3 would bring infantry warfare to its true calling and lvl four and five would revert a bit again? Adding cityfights with armor:O? I don't really know, i like the idea but its hard to envision a concept that could work. Besides i believe the bases will be looking more or less like they look now for a while at least. This kinda feature would perhaps work in the future when other stuff is done. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-05-04, 10:48 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #4 | |||||
|
First Lieutenant
|
A bonus for attacking empires who manage to take a fortress would be nice, even if it's just an extra load of XP or resources. I'm curious to see how resources will play out in general, I think if there's too much of each resource then fighting over it won't be nearly as meaningful as it would be if you're always short on what you need. If you're always short then a big one time boost from capturing a high level base would probably be worth the effort. Not to mention the satisfaction of wrecking that base they've worked hard to defend
Last edited by Gandhi; 2012-05-04 at 10:55 AM. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
2012-05-04, 11:32 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #5 | |||
|
First Sergeant
|
I gotta say guys, really liking your ideas.
If I think of anything, I'll chime in. Right now, highly in favor of passive upgrades. That way you don't have to spend all your time managing them.
Edit: although now I think about it, with the number of hexes, might need a few more 5's. Maybe three of them. (goes back to check the number of hexes again) Last edited by RawketLawnchair; 2012-05-04 at 11:34 AM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-05-04, 12:42 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #6 | ||
|
Contributor Major
|
This idea is awesome.
To me the simplest and most reasonable way to do this is almost purely cosmetic and with resources. I don't think you need to add anything defense wise to the base or really change it up at all. Just adding flags and empire based flare alone would add a lot of nostalgia to a base. Plus a small boost in the resources it generates at each level and you have added TONS of priority to a target. (I'm not saying you did forget)Don't forget that in PS1 people who loved the game had enough empire pride that it wasn't even about a bonus anymore. Like I said earlier even without added defenses I think people would defend a more Empire Specific, in cosmetic terms, base just because they feel attached to their empire. I see one problem with this idea though. How is it decided which base becomes the lvl 5 fortress?? With how it is described here so far I am led to believe once you capture a base it begins to tick up in time and slowly upgrade. This means that the ONLY base that can be your fortress is the one that is held the longest. While this makes sense, it really puts a damper on the strategic points people were making about this idea. How can you create a fortress on the front lines when your likely always going to have another base captured already?? Right now it seems like the fortress's location will be mostly based on coincidence and ease of capture. EX. bases closer to the footholds will always be the fortress. Though this doesn't really ruin the idea, it takes away some of the fun that could be had from a strategic angle. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-05-04, 02:51 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #7 | |||
|
First Lieutenant
|
What I don't like about that is you have to be online at the right time to vote, and I don't really like the idea of just 'un-fortressing' a base on the basis of a simple vote. I dunno, it just makes the concept of the fortress a little less permanent and special if you can move it around like that. On the other hand, I wouldn't like being stuck having my level 5 right by the foothold all the time, as that's probably what would happen on a purely time based system. Maybe moving the level 5 reduces the old one to level 1? Not sure... |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-05-04, 03:09 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #8 | |||
|
Contributor Major
|
Sure, this changes the idea sort of fundamentally but it still works in basically the same way. It would basically just mean that the longer you hold a base the more value it has to your empire. Taking a base that has been held for a significant amount of time is more beneficial and important than one that was just flipped. I don't see how allowing multiple lvl 5 bases would ruin the Idea. It would simply allow you to receive a bonus and an incentive to hold onto a base beyond just its existing benefits. It would allow players to say, We REALLY need to hold this base because the longer we do the more we will get out of it. Allowing for only one base at lvl 5 and only a few at other levels is a tricky tricky system. Using player votes no matter if it is cross the whole empire or given just to high CR players is pretty silly to me, and would cause empire's to be angry with one another over these decisions. Only a fluid system that keeps the game flowing on its own without voting and things that can divide your team seems like a good idea to me. And the idea of having one base lvl 5 and the other getting "topped off" at say lvl 3 until the current lvl 5 goes down is weird as well. I say simplify this idea and just make it so a base that is held longer gains value. simple and still gets the point across. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-05-05, 03:56 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #9 | |||
|
First Lieutenant
|
I think it's one of those things that would have to be worked out after we've played the game and gotten a feel for the new territory capture system. It'll probably depend largely on how long it takes for a base to reach level 5 too. But good idea, I actually hadn't thought of that cause I was too caught up in this one fortress per continent idea. It would definitely make the whole system simpler and easier to implement. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-05-05, 03:41 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #10 | ||
|
Contributor Major
|
Yea, you got my point exactly. It's a slight alteration to your idea but what you were trying to accomplish is to add more depth and incentive to gameplay. My slight suggestion on how to change it still accomplishes your main goal.
The fact remains this is a great idea in either form. My idea is pretty simple, yours I actual think could be better it just takes more careful consideration to implement it in a way that would work sensibly. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-04, 03:43 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #11 | ||
|
Sergeant Major
|
Perhaps for the smaller capture hexes (bunkers, towers, etc...) they don't passively upgrade but can be upgradeable by engineers who are willing (perhaps motivated through missions?) to spend resources and time emplacing turrets (stronger than the standalone turrets engineers can place anywhere but maybe not as strong as base turrets) on key tactical points (flanks of bunkers, extra turret slots on towers, etc...) in the area.
And again with the missions, if they take the active-upgrade approach (or even a combination of active/passive) you can have your engineers emplace turrets otherwise inaccessible when the base/tower/whatever reaches level 2, 3, etc... This could open up a whole new mission type available to CR5's (ps2 equivalent or whatever) and what not and that would give an extra incentive to class out engineer characters, rather than just have engineers be a sort of "secondary class," which is what I think they primarily are at this point -- maybe I'm wrong, but that's my general impression (gotta wait for beta and launch of course to see what's really what in the world). Overall I love the idea. In general I'm finding that ideas in this subforum are either generally good or generally not so good, and the generally good ones can be implemented (or even brain children of other ideas) with balancing, even from the nay-sayers' perspective, as it were. (For example a nay sayer to this might say that it would make bases too strong to even want to capture but that could be balanced by increasing time for bases to passively increase or by lowering the benefit of having a level 5 base -- and of course level 5 being the cap is just for example -- could be level 10 or 15 or 3 or ten thousand lol). |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-05, 09:34 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #12 | ||
|
Corporal
|
Unlimited level 5 with time based passive upgrade say maybe a month for a level five (never played PS so i don't know how fast territories change hands).
Either way this would provide incentive for empires to defend locations to try and hold out the time limit as well as provide opposing empires to make pushes to deny the defenders of their hold. This rewards both stalwart defense and aggressive and well planned/times assault. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-05, 10:28 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #13 | ||
|
First Sergeant
|
This is answer purely in regard to the first post:
Much as I like the idea...No. And here's why, In PS1 gameplay is pretty slow, but even in spite of this slow gameplay continents change hands over night daily. And Each continent has a dozen+ bases at (mostly) 15m hack and hold each. Stop to think about how much faster it is to capture a point in PS2, and the fact there is no way to lock hexes, backcaps are going to happen in spite of the time penalty there will exist to capture points behind front lines. Therefore it becomes impossible to hold a base long enough for it advance unless there were a locking system/baseshield. Which if not defended, or overwhelmed due to uneven pops, would chance hands quickly anyway. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-05, 11:41 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #14 | |||
|
Sergeant Major
|
Good point. If they were to implement this, perhaps there could be certain controls for backhacking specifically in regards to the base level (not to eliminate backhacking, which they've actually allowed even more of in some ways, but just to make it so it doesn't affect the base level). Or just eliminate the base level reduction by possession turnover entirely. If you backhack a base that's level 3, it stays level 3. It's just level 3 and will continue to progress towards level 4. But, so we don't end up with a server full of level 5's or whatever in a couple of days, (and this can coincide with the destructible terrain discussion) damage could be done to a base, even collaterally during battles for bases, and that destruction could "lower" the base level effectively. For example if you're shooting stuff up and some stray rounds impact, idk, a flag? I'm grabbing at hairs here with this now lol, but yeah they impact some kind of damageable part of the structure if it gets damaged enough (obviously more than just a few flying liabilities) then it's level would be "lowered" effectively since the structure would be damaged/destroyed. Idk, thoughts? |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-06-08, 06:45 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #15 | |||
|
First Lieutenant
|
And I think the mission system would provide some motivation here. It wouldn't be hard to automatically generate an urgent mission to defend a level 5 base as soon as it comes under attack, depending on how long the capture time is that might be enough to give the defenders a chance at saving it. Especially if you can auto-spawn at the base through the mission system, which seems to be the goal right now. Either way, should be interesting to see how this all fits together in beta and whether this idea still makes sense in the new capture system. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| base win condition |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
