Concern about base capture mechanics

[Kriegson]

Originally Posted by Littleman

The one's whom should be responsible for discouraging these stubborn aggressors are even more stubborn, opposing aggressors. People will get the idea to focus their efforts on another base, by the way.

But if all bases are captureable 100% of the time, leaving a base almost guarentees it will be attacked, or that you will be exposing your own team to an attack. Why even attempt to fight enemies where they are the strongest and instead just run around capturing bases where they have less presence?

Imagine a scenario where a coalition of outfits capture a central base. The enemies pull back, and the coalition advances towards another base to attack. The enemies who fell back simply go to the base that the coalition has just captured, and start hacking it again. The coalition has to either go back to defend the base, or simply give it up and have wasted all that time and effort for nothing.

If there's a massive advance that just crushes through the continent, capturing base after base, the other factions could simply follow up behind them, re-capturing everything they've taken.

With supply lines via hex control, expanding aggressively would simply be impossible as any captured base could be taken from you and end up with your areas being cut off at any given moment.

I don't feel that I'm fully articulating the issues I have with no lockdowns, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from on this one?

I simply don't agree with a lock out timer. If one empire takes the base, great, but in no way should that discourage the losers from continuing to fight over it because there's no point to for X amount of time.

You should have read on to the rest of my post =/
I suggested a system wherein a captured base has a limited amount of time for a successful hack to take place in order to keep it contested. Once that time expires without a successful hack, the base is locked.

For instance, VS capture a base from the TR, but the TR manage to get at least one point in the base hacked within 5 minutes, therefore the base is still in a contested state.

Alternatively, the NC capture a base from the TR, and before the TR can counterattack, the VS hit one of their vital facilities. The TR cut their losses and go to defend the base being siged by the vanu instead. After 5 minutes with no one successfully capping any of the hack points in the base, it gets locked to NC.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by Dloan

Quite so. Without holding the majority of capture points, the enemy can never capture the base (ignoring surrouding territory holdings). This is equivalent to the PS1 tower situation, except I'm not even sure these captured base points willl enable you to spawn.

While it's not clear, I'm confident we can spawn at these locations. SOE wants to encourage in-field combat and holding territory. Making it convenient for the, shall we say, retreating faction to spawn on the receding front line would help facilitate this while their enemies would need to deploy galaxies and sunderers to keep pushing against them to any real effect.

Plus, there's like a bajillion spawn points whenever someone attempts to respawn in every video we've seen. Sure, they could be very distant out-of-area towers and bases, but I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Kriegson

-Cutting this short for post length-

I don't agree with any of this. There is NO need for a lock out timer if your side is doing it right. SOE hasn't mentioned anything yet, but it's possible that it's impossible to capture territory too deep within an enemies hex grid. Until then, we can expect hexes to have a direct influence on capture times, and someone trying to take a base/tower/bunker without adjacent, friendly hexes, will likely be waiting a LONG time... too long. Finding their mobile spawn points likely won't be too difficult.

The team that presses forward capturing everything will take everything long before the "sneaky" side that is trying to back hack will get anywhere. Generally speaking, you can expect people on the front lines, which will constantly shift. Chances are, you'll see that wave of enemies plowing a trail on the continental map via the hex grid changing colors and can react accordingly, unless they're being smart bastards and synching hacks, then good on them! THAT is a valid strategic action if a bit difficult to pull of with zerglings in the mix.

Everything is important and contestable, and not merely for the resources, but for taking the territory beyond. If all you're going to hold are the bases, you deserve to get crushed. Towers are very much like bases now, only smaller. Bunkers (I imagine) help maintain a frontline in the field between towers and bases through troop deployment. Base captures shouldn't be reinforced with a lock out of any kind, even if it happens following a grace period for the losers.

Finally, that coalition you're speaking off WILL need to thin itself out as it spreads from location to location. That's actually one of the great equalizers of the Auraxian war: the empire that gains more land will have a harder time maintaining all of it, especially against the might of two separate empires that have no choice but to fight the one empire because of how much land said empire holds.

To summarize, if the base is NOT secure when it changes hands, then it is still being contested, because like towers and bunkers, it is simply contested area with a (super) structure on top. A lock out of ANY kind goes against this philosophy. The strategists will find ways to end the fighting on the base grounds proper through other means than a lock out. Count on it. For the record, these same methods will be deployed around towers to a lesser extent, and we'll likely be fighting over bunkers as if it were a game of Battlefield on a really big map!

The problem here is simple: people are thinking of bases in PS1 terms again. They're not PS1's bases. Bases in PS2 are, like the rest of the hex grid, territory to be taken for the resources and to make the next territory easier to take. Additionally, as with towers they are also forward armor/aircraft spawn points. Bases control a good chunk if land/hexes per so they're notably more demanding to conquer and hold, just as they should be.

As an alternate example, bases could be 6-7 separate hexes and each capture point turns their respective hex. Same difference, only this way one side can take the base bit by bit instead of holding a majority of the points to turn it. The point is, "bases" are just land now, not focal points like they were in PS1, with towers being something of a more impregnable forward spawn for the attacking force. The main, exclusive draw of bases in PS2 is auraxium. Important, yes, but not something where a lock out would be warranted.

NOTE: Bunkers seem to typically manage 2-3 hexes, towers 3-4 or even 5, bases always 7 in a circular pattern.

[Kezz]

The hex control system will make long, narrow offensive thrusts both slow and vulnerable, since they'll have more enemy hexes around them than friendly, so the forces trying to cut the thrust off at the root will be able (assuming similar competence and force levels) to recapture the skinny salient faster than it can be extended. Bulges in the line will have to be fairly broad to be sustainable.

And don't forget there's got to be somewhere for 2000 troopers a side to be fighting. I expect a fair amount of that will be executing and responding to opportunist/speculative "deep strikes", however difficult they are to pull off successfully, since they have to be dealt with, and that takes forces away from the "main effort".

[lolroflroflcake]

Higby talked about extra options for dealing with capture points in the form of sabotaging generators and stuff as something they were looking at in the future.

I'm willing to bet there will be a way to cripple the defenders advantage, whether if its by taking out spawns or shutting down some of those shields around entrances just to name a few potential ideas, if your good enough making it a fairly easy matter to clean out said defenders.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by lolroflroflcake

Higby talked about extra options for dealing with capture points in the form of sabotaging generators and stuff as something they were looking at in the future.

I'm willing to bet there will be a way to cripple the defenders advantage, whether if its by taking out spawns or shutting down some of those shields around entrances just to name a few potential ideas, if your good enough making it a fairly easy matter to clean out said defenders.

Actually, I think this is more like evening the odds, since the defending empire would initially have the home team advantage of hardened defenses (turrets and shields) and on-site vehicle spawning capabilities, just as examples. Maybe even spawn tubes could be knocked out?