Victory with Less Pie?

[Zadexin]

Originally Posted by maradine

It's not necessarily about whether you can hold out against superior numbers - it's about how long you can hold, and how many they send to push you off. If you can take a squad of 12 and force twice that many root you out for 10 minutes, you've created a 12-man, 10-minute window somewhere else. If you have 4 squads doing that, you've created a full platoon-sized hole in an important fight.

Maybe you don't have the coordination into your faction's command structure to capitalize on that gap - we certainly don't. But we still work to make those opportunities for others. Reasonably certain you could call that strategy.

Punching above your squad's weight is one of PS2's great pleasures.

THIS^ This is what ODAM is all about. Yes we recognize that one squad is not going to hold snake ravine against a dedicated zerg. BUT if we can set 1 squad there and delay the zerg for 10 minutes, while 3 squads cap the biolab Hydroponix (or whatever its called). Then we can all attack back downhill in force to push the zerg off.

You will never stop a force of superior numbers from taking a place if they are truly dedicated. You can delay them or if you are lucky, make them change their mind and waddle off in another direction.

I can't tell you how many alerts we have won by using this blocking strategy. But I can tell you to look up the stats for how long TR has owned Indar on Watterson.

[Rbstr]

There's sort of a mid range of pop where the slice of the pie is less important than the filling. Usually on the lower end, but not the lowest. Then in the large battles the 60-40% range tends to be reasonably even in lots of cases.

6v12 is harder than 12v24, which can be doable. But 48v96 is no good.
It depends on the base a lot and that's a good thing.
For ex. Split Peak is very hard to take from the south without even/attacker pie. Unless there's only a squad or so on each side, then it's actually not so bad to take.

[timwamail]

I completely disagree. We routinely attack and defend areas at a significant disadvantage. It's very rare to come across any sort of organized defense, and rarer still a coordinated attack. If you're outnumbered two to one or worse, your time is limited... but target fixation is your friend.

[Ruffdog]

Like the 300 Spartans it depends upon
1. Location
2. Soldier skill

But in theory you can do one better than the ancient Greeks. They didn't have reviving medics. I would say if you're going offensive you need a critical mass of medics otherwise don't bother. Every death you take on the chin has to be worthless.
Its hard to fight pie but defensive will become easier post-gu11 with the no deploy zones for ams-sunderers.
But a lot of times, numbers just win.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Ruffdog

Like the 300 Spartans it depends upon
1. Location
2. Soldier skill

But in theory you can do one better than the ancient Greeks. They didn't have reviving medics. I would say if you're going offensive you need a critical mass of medics otherwise don't bother. Every death you take on the chin has to be worthless.
Its hard to fight pie but defensive will become easier post-gu11 with the no deploy zones for ams-sunderers.
But a lot of times, numbers just win.

Funny thing happened yesterday on Indar. This was between NC and VS in the middle center of the map. From Mao Southwest Gate > Briggs Laboratories > East Canyon Checkpoint > The Palisade... There was a constant back and forth of capturing those locations quite a few times when I was playing. I've also seen quite the tug-o-war between TR and NC between Indar Excavation Site > Quartz Ridge Camp > Hvar Northgate Garrison on the west side of the map.

Some fixes to the map might be in order here. Cause it seems we spend a little too much time in those locations a lot of times. Perhaps some more, or different, lattice links, with terrain tweaking?

EDIT: One more note, if 3 empire footholds where removed from Indar and it was made a home continenet for one empire, this might not be as bad of an issue because there would be more routes to take on the lattice that could spread out 2 empires (unless there's a 3-way occurring which should be rarer). Some lattice tweaking in relation to warp-gates might still be in order though.

[Falcon_br]

Originally Posted by Zadexin

THIS^ This is what ODAM is all about. Yes we recognize that one squad is not going to hold snake ravine against a dedicated zerg. BUT if we can set 1 squad there and delay the zerg for 10 minutes, while 3 squads cap the biolab Hydroponix (or whatever its called). Then we can all attack back downhill in force to push the zerg off.

You will never stop a force of superior numbers from taking a place if they are truly dedicated. You can delay them or if you are lucky, make them change their mind and waddle off in another direction.

I can't tell you how many alerts we have won by using this blocking strategy. But I can tell you to look up the stats for how long TR has owned Indar on Watterson.

I don't think you saw here my reports about working with ODAM on Esamir.
Most of times ODAM will never try to hold a base and will try to avoid the enemy Zerg.
I can't discuss if it is effective or not, since everyone were doing that before the Latice.
I already complained that one day a full platoon of the ODAM were cert farming a spawn point on frostbite harbor, while my platoon had to do the hard work of killing the enemy sunderer and flipping the point.
Today I discussed with Slyguy and other people on the command channel and looks like you guys will finally start doing events, like I am saying since the first event, holding Indar is not worth if we are going to lose all events because of that, the bonus is too small when you compare to all those free certs to everyone on the server.
Finally, I was getting tired of going to events just to deny the NC, domination victories.

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by Zadexin

THIS^ This is what ODAM is all about. Yes we recognize that one squad is not going to hold snake ravine against a dedicated zerg. BUT if we can set 1 squad there and delay the zerg for 10 minutes, while 3 squads cap the biolab Hydroponix (or whatever its called). Then we can all attack back downhill in force to push the zerg off.

You will never stop a force of superior numbers from taking a place if they are truly dedicated. You can delay them or if you are lucky, make them change their mind and waddle off in another direction.

I can't tell you how many alerts we have won by using this blocking strategy. But I can tell you to look up the stats for how long TR has owned Indar on Watterson.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Waterson TR hold Indar because there is simply no way the server can handle 666 vs. 666 in one Hex. If the continent is full, it will never be neutralized. Or I should say, it will never be done in a fair straight up fight. If it does get neutralized, it will be because the server lag severely hampered the defenders more than the attackers.

The only reason TR have Indar is because it was capped during off-peak times when overall server populations were low and the TR had population advantage.

And to stay on topic, I agree with the OP. I always look at the hex populations when the fight turns into a spawn room camp fest and the "magic" number is around 60% +/- 5%.

Of course, as someone has already said, the scale of the battle makes a difference too. If it's just a few squads, 2:1 odds can be overcome. But at platoon sizes... I've never seen it.

[Assist]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

If the continent is full, it will never be neutralized. .

Agreed, and this is a major issue that is just never talked about unfortunately. You can tell when a faction has a chance to neutralize or take a continent simply by looking at the population numbers. That's just not how this game should be.

[kubacheski]

Originally Posted by Assist

Agreed, and this is a major issue that is just never talked about unfortunately. You can tell when a faction has a chance to neutralize or take a continent simply by looking at the population numbers. That's just not how this game should be.

I don't think anyone would disagree with these statements, but the real question is:

Is this a problem with the limited ("stand-alone") continents?

I mean there is no continent lattice linkage like in PS1. You linked through the warpgates to another continent. With the low number of conts and each instanced (oh yes that dreaded word in a MMO, i said it, SOE knows it. ) separately, you never get to push through the warpgate. The flow from continent to continent allowed you to take a few conts, but the linkage from a few conts back got weak and someone eventually broke through, then they'd follow the link to the next cont and so on and so on. If you wanted to keep conts, your front had to secure their backside too. I even remember multiple times sitting at a warpgate waiting to get through as the cont on the other end was pop locked because the objective was so important to the flow of the game.

As it sits now, the conts aren't linked so you're really fighting multiple battles, not one big war on multiple continents. That's why I use the word instanced as each cont is an instance of it's own world. There's essentially multiple PS2 games running, you just choose the map you want to be on. It's not directly connected. There's only one spawn point for each map allowing only one front for each faction.

I guess the way to say is that there is no way for someone to come up behind you. Your soldiers on each cont all get to focus on one battle line as defined by the lattice now. You never have to go secure another front (on the other side of a warpgate) to defend the ability to secure a cont.

I guess to use the pie reference, the metagame simply isn't robust enough, so you simply have to thow bodies at it to win. The more bodies the bigger your pie. when it gets to the point where the front you're fighting on gets small tho, most factions jump to the other cont where they're winning so the enemy pie stays small the closer you get to the opponent warpgates. Sad they jump ship to win on another map. Linkage between conts would elimiate that.

The TR can follow the NC retreat through the warpgate to the next base and begin taking the next continent. But watch out, those dirty Vanu will sneak up behind ya and mess up your cont lock. Dirty Vanu.

[PurpleOtter]

One of the few variables that can affect the outcome of a numbers disproportionate battle is if the defenders can pull the appropriate class in enough numbers at the right time. As mentioned in the above example, having Medics in numbers to 'rez after a push, having Heavies with lock on's to counter a tank column at the right time is key, etcetera. This is of course predicated on either the uncoordinated players being experienced enough for self initiative or leadership is present in the form of an organised Outfit/platoon/Squad.

[Maarvy]

You can have all the pie you want ...

Sometimes all it takes is a little bit of extra tasty cake to push you over the edge .

[SolLeks]

In my experience, depending on the base, We (X) and in a larger seance We (ARA) have been able to hold off 3 to 4 times our numbers for quite a wile. Unless we can kill the spawns of the enemies, they will eventually push us back and out of the base but if we are able to coordinate between our squads / outfits, base permitting, we are able to stop large numbers of players in their tracks...

But then there are lots of bases that you can not really defend as they have little cover and are just a few buildings spread around an area, these bases we are maybe able to hold off double our numbers, but that can be a streach.


Location + player skill + coordination of the officers mixed in with squad mates that follow the officers = able to fight off a 'zerg'

There are a lot of veribles you need to get right to do it successfully, but often just holding off a large number of players will let your empire push in another direction, and that is often good enough.

As a side note, I miss the sanctuaries... that would help with all the 'afk warpgate' people you see that are trying to swap conts, and it would allow a larger over all tactical flow assuming the lattice is extended to the other conts as well. mix in cont locking and we will have a real game!

[kubacheski]

Originally Posted by SolLeks

As a side note, I miss the sanctuaries... that would help with all the 'afk warpgate' people you see that are trying to swap conts, and it would allow a larger over all tactical flow assuming the lattice is extended to the other conts as well. mix in cont locking and we will have a real game!

You mean PS1? Devs are trying to implement more of the metagame from PS1 to make PS2 a "real game"

The real problem for integrating lattice through wormholes and sancs is the limited number of conts. Without more than 3x the current number, interconnecting conts and inserting sanc doesn't allow for symmetrial (or near enough) alignment for all 3 factions.

Odd how it's not the engine mechanics that get full blame for limiting the implementation of metagame, it's the hand crafting of terrain and maps.

I'm a little concerned how long it's taking to push out new conts. It would seem that would be a very very very high priority. I mean, the longer it takes, the more servers they're going to need furher spreading the population. As more conts are inserted, are they going to have to consolidate servers to keep pops up to cover the new ground?

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

Thing is, there are all the tools needed, bar perhaps 1 tool, which would be more, useful placables. Some people can argue that it is base design.. but frankly I see placeables fixing that problem if properly implemented.

While I don't disagree that we could use more Combat Engineering, Base Design right now is still pretty bad...

I mean, if we get what we saw on Esamir when they introduced the Shield Umbrellas then maybe we'll have something, but Major Facilities are still going to need an overhaul to make their interior space actually useful.

[typhaon]

I've seen situations in this game where smaller numbers both defended against AND conquered bases vs. significantly larger forces.

But.. in order to accomplish these things I think you actually have to BE GOOD at the game... and I'm not just talking about raw FPS skills. Those certainly help, but it's much more than that.

I think a lot of people think that because they are in a platoon and are acting on some vague orders, ie - "Alpha, attack point A!" - that they are organized and it's irritating that they can't overcome long odds.

At worst... that's probably the exact same level of organization your enemy has. It's another thing entirely to be in a squad of 12... 6 MAX... 3 medics... 3 engineers... and knowing exactly where to attack and how to hold the room - then what to do next.

Having said all of that.. Yup! I'd like to see more ways to upgrade a base for defense. I'd like to see benefits for outfits that claim a base and I'd like to see those benefits structured such that the most valuable bases are the hardest to defend... and vice versa.

And... if we EVER get rid of the warpgates and go back to a home base, I'd like to see certain 'foothold-type bases on each continent offer different defensive benefits for different factions... For example - on Indar... some base along the edge might be an old Vanu research facility. Though it can be controlled by NC and TR, they aren't able to get the same benefits out of it. VS can control it and 'turn on' more shielding and maybe better vehicle spawns... thus making it a good place to start an invasion or retreat to when people are trying to evict you from a continent.