A Simple look at why defense feels useless.

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by Mietz

If people "defend" its because they want a target-rich environment with a 15% boost to XP, not because they want to defend the facility, as that is impossible by default.

Not true; I like to defend, and I don't even consider the 15% XP boost. Really enjoy pushing the attackers back, or ripping the heart out of their attack by blowing their Sunderer. Doesn't always work out that way, of course, but if defending were impossible, I wouldn't have 1027 defences to my name, compared with 322 captures; that's a ratio of over 3:1.

[Figment]

Compare the layout and with it the flow between these two versions of a Bio Lab:



And then compare it to PS1 layout and flow:




The reason why nobody defends, or defense is as Mietz put it, a stalling effort, is simply down to flow. PS2 flow heavily favours the attackers (even after the most recent game update, though there's some hope for defenders now).

Defense should be layered like an onion, where the courtyard is but one of the layers and each layer has decent two-directional flow, with more choke on the inward flow than on the outward flow.


Currently, defense is layered like a polka dot shirt surrounded by a wall. It's a game of connect the dots through the courtyard, where the wall is the only shell you have. At least the tunnels provide some form of passage that negates enemy tanks, even if they make you come out through killing zones in front of firing squads and the current tunnels may as well have been teleporters. Before the jumppad change, the wall wasn't even a line of defense, but a line of offense.

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by psijaka

Not true; I like to defend, and I don't even consider the 15% XP boost. Really enjoy pushing the attackers back, or ripping the heart out of their attack by blowing their Sunderer. Doesn't always work out that way, of course, but if defending were impossible, I wouldn't have 1027 defences to my name, compared with 322 captures; that's a ratio of over 3:1.

Thanks for proving my point, its exactly what I said.
You just said yourself you enjoy the -combat- of defense, not the strategic side of defense, because there is no strategic side of defense.

Defense is what you do on a personal level because you either enjoy the combat, the situation or the XP gain, not because its useful to actually hold the facility.


I enjoy the combat of defense as well (i have also a 3:1 def ratio), it still not really useful for my faction at all. I'm wasting my time holding Amp when my faction is pushing into enemy territory.

The fact is you can not actually hold on to a facility because there are too many front-line facilities to hold at any given time and the only way to "lock" them is to -take- the outlying territories to reduce the enemy influence to zero. Which is rarely ever done except for zergs as beating back any sort of attack on a facility is nigh impossible.

It's a constant back and forth of territory.

It's shit.

PS:
Because this might be unclear, when I'm talking about defense I mean this:
- The defense of an objective for the sake of the objective.
When I talk about securing:
- The successful defense of an objective that frees up actors to play offensively

Being attacked and shooting back is not by itself defense and neither is holding a facility.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by psijaka

but if defending were impossible, I wouldn't have 1027 defences to my name, compared with 322 captures; that's a ratio of over 3:1.

You do realise that a base defense is tallied the moment a single guy makes the counter tick a few seconds and it's reset back to full bar? That counts as "base defended" as well, even if the next hack attempt works. :/

A base is not defended till the battle is over and the attackers have been forced to make a full retreat.

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by Figment

You do realise that a base defense is tallied the moment a single guy makes the counter tick a few seconds and it's reset back to full bar? That counts as "base defended" as well, even if the next hack attempt works. :/

A base is not defended till the battle is over and the attackers have been forced to make a full retreat.

Well aware of that.

Edit - you do realise that someone can look at the map to see which base is about to flip, redeploy there and get the 1000XP without lifting a finger. That counts as a "base conquered".

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by Mietz

Thanks for proving my point, its exactly what I said.
You just said yourself you enjoy the -combat- of defense, not the strategic side of defense, because there is no strategic side of defense.

Defense is what you do on a personal level because you either enjoy the combat, the situation or the XP gain, not because its useful to actually hold the facility.

Not proving it at all; you are putting words into my mouth. There is a strategic side to it.

[Gonefshn]

I take my ideas from planetside 1. The most tangible reward for defense was maintaining territory. Especially when each team had 2 unnoficial home continents. It was hard to take a home continent from an enemy. People didn't leave when things when south, they fought harder because that home continent mattered to them.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

I take my ideas from planetside 1. The most tangible reward for defense was maintaining territory. Especially when each team had 2 unnoficial home continents. It was hard to take a home continent from an enemy. People didn't leave when things when south, they fought harder because that home continent mattered to them.

You are skipping a few steps though.

It should be possible to defend, hold and push back, without having to leave and mount a counter-offensive first.

Otherwise people have to leave.

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by psijaka

Not proving it at all; you are putting words into my mouth. There is a strategic side to it.

I never said there isn't a strategic side to defense. I said defense isn't played for strategy.

And you provided why you play defense, which looked exactly like you weren't playing it for strategy.

I'm not putting words in anyones mouth, FFS I quoted you, it's there for everyone to see.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by psijaka

Well aware of that.

Edit - you do realise that someone can look at the map to see which base is about to flip, redeploy there and get the 1000XP without lifting a finger. That counts as a "base conquered".

Yeah, I've seen many aircav groups dedicated to flying to the next cap someone else pulled off actually... :/

Hope the *cough*PS1*cough* base hack exp system rewarding exp by effort in base cap (time spend in vicinity, people spot, enemy presence, repairs, assists and kills) are calculated into a capture and resecure score and that this would replace mere numbers and flat rate experience point awards.

Ie. a reflection of invested time, effort and difficulty.


PS: That said, I currently play defense because my PS1 ethos demands it as commander: don't ask others to do what you wouldn't do yourself. It is done despite hope that the effect has any significance. It is done despite gering utterly frustrated with how easy it is for your squad to get cut off and zergcamped, even by insignificant numbers (by PS1 standards, say a 2:1 ratio). It is frustrating to be skilled enough to escape a deathtrap camp, dodge three tanks, get to the enemy AMS and drop C4, to blow it and toss a grenade just in case and then to get instakilled while three new AMSes pull up, along with 13 more tanks to complement the 30 stationary instakill units already there, standing between you and one of three CCs you need to hold with multiple people for eons after the hack started and went on a bit.


If we had different resecure systems (instant, or almost instant), more defense oriented base layouts (yes spawn room is far more defensible now, but I'm defending dozens of meters away from where I need to get to and only have a few seconds, so it is pointless unless I have a zerg at my disposal) and sure enough, some sort of region link blocking to control the links and thus what happens on both ends.


It's just not encouraging defense right now. Luckilly they are starting to make positive base design changes. I'm hoping they see I'm not talking bullshit here and that previous suggestions did a lot for defense in terms of anti-spawnfarming.

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by Figment

Yeah, I've seen many aircav groups dedicated to flying to the next cap someone else pulled off actually... :/

Hope the *cough*PS1*cough* base hack exp system rewarding exp by effort in base cap (time spend in vicinity, people spot, enemy presence, repairs, assists and kills) are calculated into a capture and resecure score and that this would replace mere numbers and flat rate experience point awards.

Ie. a reflection of invested time, effort and difficulty.

Yeah, once people get the hang of the map, it is easy for them to spot which base is about to flip and get there just in time to bag the easy XP. Poor game design that encourages such behaviour.

I would certainly welcome something like the PS1 system you describe, both for attack and defense.

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by Figment

Compare the layout and with it the flow between these two versions of a Bio Lab:



And then compare it to PS1 layout and flow:




The reason why nobody defends, or defense is as Mietz put it, a stalling effort, is simply down to flow. PS2 flow heavily favours the attackers (even after the most recent game update, though there's some hope for defenders now).

Defense should be layered like an onion, where the courtyard is but one of the layers and each layer has decent two-directional flow, with more choke on the inward flow than on the outward flow.


Currently, defense is layered like a polka dot shirt surrounded by a wall. It's a game of connect the dots through the courtyard, where the wall is the only shell you have. At least the tunnels provide some form of passage that negates enemy tanks, even if they make you come out through killing zones in front of firing squads and the current tunnels may as well have been teleporters. Before the jumppad change, the wall wasn't even a line of defense, but a line of offense.

You've done a lot of work here, Figment, and it illustrates well why Bio Labs are such a clusterfuck. AMP stations aren't much better, despite the recent improvements.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by psijaka

You've done a lot of work here, Figment, and it illustrates well why Bio Labs are such a clusterfuck. AMP stations aren't much better, despite the recent improvements.

Quite. You didn't play PS1 iirc right?

I trust you can see how big a difference it is with PS2 though:

If I'd draw up a flow chart for PS2, next to none of these would be concentric defense perimeters but pretty much every vital thing would be in E-F as stand alone objectives, with true A-D levels missing. Spawn buildings and some of the other buildings would count as C-D, but they'd be more like tiny polka dots on the courtyard, rather than a single large keep.

[Figment]

Actually, here we go:



Same color coding as for the PS1 bases has been used.

PS: note that the walls are not complete, since infantry can cross them and they regularly contain "holes" like snow allowing a tank to drive in or tunnels for infantry. Or the walls are simply non-existent on certain sides. Often holes in the wall exist 20-40 meters away from the actual shielded gates, making those completely pointless.

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by Figment

You didn't play PS1 iirc right?

I trust you can see how big a difference it is with PS2:

If I'd draw up a flow chart for PS2, next to none of these would be concentric defense perimeters but pretty much every vital thing would be in E-F as stand alone objectives, with true A-D levels missing. Spawn buildings and some of the other buildings would count as C-D, but they'd be more like tiny polka dots on the courtyard, rather than a single large keep.

No, my PS1 experience limited to Youtube unfortunately. And yes, big difference!

Edit - interesting to see your latest diagrams. Large outposts are far too porous.

I'm not even convinced that the AMP stations have been much improved; sure the spawn room changes are good, but the bases are still far too easy to infiltrate and the discontinuity in the perimeter jump pads hinders the defenders as much as having their exclusive use helps them. Two steps forward, one step back.