Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid
I've actually seen this more than a couple of times now since the update (might be something to do with the defensibility updates, certainly makes me think they had some sort of positive effect at least).
Just last night I was fighting a the Crossroads Watchtower (as NC, against the TR). They had both of the outer capture points and were almost finished with the cap, but we actually managed to make a last minute push and resecured (and took the fight to them instead).
We could even get out of the spawn room and defend the stairs from the garage area, which makes a massive change from what it was like before.
|
Thats not exactly what I'm talking about.
What I mean is you have a base fight and then you actually "secure" the facility.
i.e. the assault is done and they have to leave.
This is simply not possible because there is no condition to lock a base and prevent a flip (beyond actively fighting for it and delaying the inevitable).
The defensibility of bases is tightly tied to the actual capture mechanics, its not just a question of having more walls, turrets, shields and mans.
A guy on the SOE PS2 forums called Tuco is constantly calling for the return of minefields, spitfires, cloaked AMS and motion detectors for example.
And don't get me wrong, they would all be fun and add a certain edge for the defenders, but they wouldn't make a base defensible in the sense I understand it. They would only hold back a tide that will overpower you at some point.
What I'm talking about is actually securing the base in the sense where the defenders aren't tied up in the defense anymore but can go on the offensive in the knowledge that their job here is done.
Yes, I'm implying base-locks, but -clever- base-locks that aren't an automatic win for the defenders by just holding the facility or resecuring it (like in Beta).
Figments system would in fact give a chance for that, but it would be solely by virtue of holding and securing the outlying hexes instead of an actual mechanic for the bases themselves.
It would be a good step forward, but I'm not sure of the long term consequences as the link-structure in the current "lattice" might screw over some bases that have less links and therefore can't achieve the suggested X% of influence as not all bases have the same amount of adjecent territory that would provide influence.
So for one base you would need to take 2 outlying outposts to "unlock it" for capture, but for others you would maybe need 4.
The most obvious candidates for this to happen are outposts that are on the edge of the map as they have less territories connected and able to provide influence.
I would need to analyze the structure of the hexes for a more specific example but I'm too lazy right now.
2013-02-08, 06:59 AM
Threaded Mode