Tactical Misconceptions Pt1: Bio Lab.

[Ghoest9]

Originally Posted by thegreekboy

The big problem with the teleporters is that in order to take that advantage away, you need to actually STOP defending your spawn control and run out to take a camp.

Yes this is a big problem is you only have 2 people. /em rolls eyes


If you cant spare anyone to go clear the teleporters thats because you are significantly out manned or you are facing better players.


On the other hand if its like ~90% of bio-dome fights. A competent 4 man squad could handle it.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

Yes this is a big problem is you only have 2 people. /em rolls eyes


If you cant spare anyone to go clear the teleporters thats because you are significantly out manned or you are facing better players.


On the other hand if its like ~90% of bio-dome fights. A competent 4 man squad could handle it.

You want to defend AND break out of a Bio Lab with a 4 man squad? Riiiight. Guess you never seen how many the enemy can spare to camp their end. You know, the points where all their troops go through before they take the attack into the Bio Dome.




So it's about zerging winning by default instead of smart game play.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

Yes but you are also saying that by design bio-labs are hard to defend.

We explicitly stated on several occassions we said that's not the case. We said it's vulnerable to breaking if you relent on any point's defense.

They are not hard to defend. Rather its simply more fun and more profitable to play them them in manner that leasts to an eventual loss.

.................................................. .....................

"Farming that leads to a loss is fun." And you play competitive conquest games, for... what purpose again?

[velleity]

There only need to be 6 facilities on a cont. the three empires can just trade caps.

Better yet each empire gets its own island, and facilities can flip on a counter clockwise timer. Afks from other factions on other islands can be spawned in for
authenticity and supplement br1s. This way the faction can chase its tail against undefended base caps all day long.

[morganm]

I get where yall are coming from; the bases were obviously not designed to be easily defensible. No military in their right mind would do stupid things like building big outer walls with gaps large enough for tanks to drive through, put shield generators outside of the shields they were generating, or put in so many easy access ways to critical infrastructure.

They were NOT designed to be easily defended! It's pretty clear most of the game was designed with the idea of "Nowhere is safe" and fast paced combat where objectives are constantly changing hands.

I think they were trying to avoid the meat-grinder / farm scenarios where a small defending force can hold a facility while huge numbers of attackers die trying to even get in let alone take the base. They didn't want hours of siege on one station. Personally I wouldn't want to play that game either.

Frankly I like the game how it is. I don't see the fact that facilities are constantly, and quickly, changing hands as a bad thing. I'm glad that a small number of people can't defend positions against overwhelming opposition. It's awesome that there are so many variables and ways to penetrate a station because it's more of a challenge to defend and more variety in strategy.

There is strategy involved here at individual facilities and at the continental level but not like some are advocating here. What's interesting, to me, is that there isn't one or a few 100% strategies to defend anything. The fast pace changing continent makes leadership have to really be on the ball with coordinating their forces and making decisions on where to go. You have to be coordinated, diverse, and quick to adapt to circumstances in order to defend and be successful in this game. Sorry it's not as easy as "man the turrets, defend the choke points, and we'll hold the fort indefinitely!" Honestly I'm glad it's not like that.

[DirkSmacker]

Originally Posted by thegreekboy

The big problem with the teleporters is that in order to take that advantage away, you need to actually STOP defending your spawn control and run out to take a camp.

Isn't it a good thing that defenders can choose to take a risk to stop how many points the attackers can come from?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by morganm

I get where yall are coming from; the bases were obviously not designed to be easily defensible. No military in their right mind would do stupid things like building big outer walls with gaps large enough for tanks to drive through, put shield generators outside of the shields they were generating, or put in so many easy access ways to critical infrastructure.

They were NOT designed to be easily defended! It's pretty clear most of the game was designed with the idea of "Nowhere is safe" and fast paced combat where objectives are constantly changing hands.

I don't think that most people that here "A base is yours till they come take it from you!" (Higby's motto), never should have meant that they should just come back, walk in and snatch it right out of your hands while the paint is still wet.

JUST because they have a few more people.

I think they were trying to avoid the meat-grinder / farm scenarios where a small defending force can hold a facility while huge numbers of attackers die trying to even get in let alone take the base. They didn't want hours of siege on one station. Personally I wouldn't want to play that game either.

You probable would if it provides a good balance.

I got one question for you, when you were younger and you played with puzzles. Did you go from 10 pieces to 25 pieces to 100 pieces to 250 and eventually 1000 pieces, or 15.000 pieces with just clear blue sky?



Because attacking is like a puzzle. finding a solution to a problem: How do I take this away from them?


Say the ultimate farm would be 15.000 pieces, pretty damn nigh impossible.

PS1 would be: Bio Lab 500 pieces or you could break then gen, then it'd be 10 pieces (the challenge was in expanding from one), AMP Station, 500 pieces, Tech Plant 2500 pieces, DSC 3500 pieces and Interlink 5000 pieces. Still pretty doable for the smart players. Only idiots would get farmed because they got lost in the puzzle.

PS2 should be around 2500-3000 pieces to give the zergling and the smart player both a good challenge that they can solve.


Currently, the defensive puzzle is 20.000 for outposts (unsolvable), 15000 for most bigger bases (nigh impossible) and 150 for the Crown, since the attacker there faces two puzzles: a 1000 pieces and another 2500 pieces on its side (second empire). It can be cracked pretty well, but it's a grind.

The attacking puzzle for any outpost however, is in the order of 10-25. Pretty damn simple. Babies could do it: just a straight forward frontal assault from ANY direction. Done.

If the solution is obvious, can you imagine that the fast people would get bored off it really fast, because 25 pieces for a puzzle is pretty damn little to pose for a challenge?

Frankly I like the game how it is. I don't see the fact that facilities are constantly, and quickly, changing hands as a bad thing. I'm glad that a small number of people can't defend positions against overwhelming opposition. It's awesome that there are so many variables and ways to penetrate a station because it's more of a challenge to defend and more variety in strategy.

So basically, you want people demoralised because they can't make a stand. :/ Because we're not all like you. The game isn't designed just around your position. It's supposed to offer something to ALL of us. If all of us were zerglings in zergfits, we'd have left PS1 years ago. Why? Because it'd be too easy for players of our capacity to play with just numbers.

We - as players - have a need to excel at something. To prove to ourselves we can handle a challenge. Not being allowed to do that by being made fodder by design makes us feel as treated as some low level AI mob in a quest: we're there to entertain the opposition, not for our own entertainment, while both of us are there for entertainment.

You're looking at this far too much from your perspective. What you want is a 50-100 pieces puzzle. Most of us think that's far too little. We want something between 1000 and 3500, that's true for both defense (with less people) and attack (with more people).

Why? Because that makes it satisfying. You cracked that tough cookie. You didn't steal candy from a baby. You @*^#@*$ made a feat happen!

There is strategy involved here at individual facilities and at the continental level but not like some are advocating here. What's interesting, to me, is that there isn't one or a few 100% strategies to defend anything. The fast pace changing continent makes leadership have to really be on the ball with coordinating their forces and making decisions on where to go. You have to be coordinated, diverse, and quick to adapt to circumstances in order to defend and be successful in this game.

I completely disagree. There's no strategy involved whatsoever on neither level. If you were a leader, which you clearly aren't, you'd understand that organisation requires time.

Time is something PS2 doesn't give you. So you can claim we "have to be on the ball", but we were people who in PS1 would have 15 minutes to react to something, first we'd need to scout if it's worth interest from a few people, that would leave say 6-12 minutes, depending on how soon something was spotted, then we need to ask for backup, which can take a few more minutes and they won't arrive in force, meanwhile you need to plan and execute at the same time. Preferably with enough time left to get people back to the other frontline before that front collapses completely. That too requires less people to only slowly lose ground and be able to stall. Because if stalling is impossible, then you'll just have lost both at the same time and responding to anything is pointless.


That's currently the case. Respond, you lose the other side. The only thing you can hope for is that they overextend and disperse, after which you do it to them and return the collapse favour. Which is utterly boring, disastrous for morale and ultimately makes the game feel pointless, because there's no achievement and it's not your doing.

In extreme cases, we needed to get over 100 people CONVINCED that leaving their current fight was more important than grinding an exp farm, then have them travel to another continent, or part of a continent, organise such that they can tackle the local defenses set up by the holder by pushing the right positions and then clear them out, make sure they're cleared out and per chance hold for another 15 mins, or set up for a good counter attack or defense of multiple links.

But at least, if you managed to stall them by taking off an early hack, few could hold till reinforcements would come.


In PS2, we're looking at many continents being on the flipping side at the same time. You get overloaded with vague information that's all vying for your attention. You have about 5 minutes to scout, send for help and organise and mount a counter offensive including non-local spawnpoints, probably against overwhelming numbers with a lot of one hit kill weapons and each player having their own vehicle.

In the meantime, the local spawn is beyond useless, you can't quickly reset a counter by a well coordinated resecure strike and as such stalling precision strikes aren't even an option.

That simply can't be stopped unless you have a reactionary army on standby. And even then you can only tackle one base at a time. It's way too fast and spread out to make good decisions and you simply don't have time to zergherd.

You even only have ONE /orders per 5 minutes, opposed to the 3 coms in PS1 per minute.


You have any idea what kind of logistical challenge you propose? This cannot be done in the context of single-two squads at max online outfits, which the majority of outfits consist of.

Sorry it's not as easy as "man the turrets, defend the choke points, and we'll hold the fort indefinitely!" Honestly I'm glad it's not like that.

Just curious, but why is it people like you (I'm generalizing here, forgive me), always make these exageration statements that suggest ANY increase in defensibility would make this instant-Hamburger Hill?


And where do you get this silly notion that people who simply want a skilled group to hold of larger numbers wwant some kind of fortress of doom? We're not talking the 1470 siege of Rhodes (3500 vs at minimum five to perhaps twenty times their numbers), or the second siege of (7500 vs 100.000) here. Pretty damn impressive defensive fortifications, but that's a bit much for a game. We want something consistent between a PS1 AMP station and a PS1 tech/DSC for normal bases, probably a couple exceptions that are harder and for some smaller outposts something more like the PS1 bio lab (quite easy, but not a push-over either if the defenders do it well), more to scale with a tower with courtyard and outer wall than a shed.

I don't think anyone was happy with the Tech Plant, either defenders or attackers, since it was just an unfullfilling meatgrind of two little doors (less doors and SMALLER doors than in PS1, while we all asked for bigger doors, so there was less grind to get in... Especially with more people potentially waiting).



Fact of the matter is, the bases were designed with a deathmatch "modern shooter" style map in mind, while in fact, it should have been based on a "conquest map", which are more linear in advancement. (And yes, you can be more linear, while having a 360 degrees approach on a tower or base, it's a matter of ringed defense design which creates several phases of siege).

[Figment]

Originally Posted by DirkSmacker

Isn't it a good thing that defenders can choose to take a risk to stop how many points the attackers can come from?

Not if it's a pretty guaranteed loss.

[Ghoest9]

Originally Posted by Figment

I don't think that most people that here "A base is yours till they come take it from you!" (Higby's motto), never should have meant that they should just come back, walk in and snatch it right out of your hands while the paint is still wet.

JUST because they have a few more people.



You probable would if it provides a good balance.

I got one question for you, when you were younger and you played with puzzles. Did you go from 10 pieces to 25 pieces to 100 pieces to 250 and eventually 1000 pieces, or 15.000 pieces with just clear blue sky?



Because attacking is like a puzzle. finding a solution to a problem: How do I take this away from them?


Say the ultimate farm would be 15.000 pieces, pretty damn nigh impossible.

PS1 would be: Bio Lab 500 pieces or you could break then gen, then it'd be 10 pieces (the challenge was in expanding from one), AMP Station, 500 pieces, Tech Plant 2500 pieces, DSC 3500 pieces and Interlink 5000 pieces. Still pretty doable for the smart players. Only idiots would get farmed because they got lost in the puzzle.

PS2 should be around 2500-3000 pieces to give the zergling and the smart player both a good challenge that they can solve.


Currently, the defensive puzzle is 20.000 for outposts (unsolvable), 15000 for most bigger bases (nigh impossible) and 150 for the Crown, since the attacker there faces two puzzles: a 1000 pieces and another 2500 pieces on its side (second empire). It can be cracked pretty well, but it's a grind.

The attacking puzzle for any outpost however, is in the order of 10-25. Pretty damn simple. Babies could do it: just a straight forward frontal assault from ANY direction. Done.

If the solution is obvious, can you imagine that the fast people would get bored off it really fast, because 25 pieces for a puzzle is pretty damn little to pose for a challenge?



So basically, you want people demoralised because they can't make a stand. :/ Because we're not all like you. The game isn't designed just around your position. It's supposed to offer something to ALL of us. If all of us were zerglings in zergfits, we'd have left PS1 years ago. Why? Because it'd be too easy for players of our capacity to play with just numbers.

We - as players - have a need to excel at something. To prove to ourselves we can handle a challenge. Not being allowed to do that by being made fodder by design makes us feel as treated as some low level AI mob in a quest: we're there to entertain the opposition, not for our own entertainment, while both of us are there for entertainment.

You're looking at this far too much from your perspective. What you want is a 50-100 pieces puzzle. Most of us think that's far too little. We want something between 1000 and 3500, that's true for both defense (with less people) and attack (with more people).

Why? Because that makes it satisfying. You cracked that tough cookie. You didn't steal candy from a baby. You @*^#@*$ made a feat happen!



I completely disagree. There's no strategy involved whatsoever on neither level. If you were a leader, which you clearly aren't, you'd understand that organisation requires time.

Time is something PS2 doesn't give you. So you can claim we "have to be on the ball", but we were people who in PS1 would have 15 minutes to react to something, first we'd need to scout if it's worth interest from a few people, that would leave say 6-12 minutes, depending on how soon something was spotted, then we need to ask for backup, which can take a few more minutes and they won't arrive in force, meanwhile you need to plan and execute at the same time. Preferably with enough time left to get people back to the other frontline before that front collapses completely. That too requires less people to only slowly lose ground and be able to stall. Because if stalling is impossible, then you'll just have lost both at the same time and responding to anything is pointless.


That's currently the case. Respond, you lose the other side. The only thing you can hope for is that they overextend and disperse, after which you do it to them and return the collapse favour. Which is utterly boring, disastrous for morale and ultimately makes the game feel pointless, because there's no achievement and it's not your doing.

In extreme cases, we needed to get over 100 people CONVINCED that leaving their current fight was more important than grinding an exp farm, then have them travel to another continent, or part of a continent, organise such that they can tackle the local defenses set up by the holder by pushing the right positions and then clear them out, make sure they're cleared out and per chance hold for another 15 mins, or set up for a good counter attack or defense of multiple links.

But at least, if you managed to stall them by taking off an early hack, few could hold till reinforcements would come.


In PS2, we're looking at many continents being on the flipping side at the same time. You get overloaded with vague information that's all vying for your attention. You have about 5 minutes to scout, send for help and organise and mount a counter offensive including non-local spawnpoints, probably against overwhelming numbers with a lot of one hit kill weapons and each player having their own vehicle.

In the meantime, the local spawn is beyond useless, you can't quickly reset a counter by a well coordinated resecure strike and as such stalling precision strikes aren't even an option.

That simply can't be stopped unless you have a reactionary army on standby. And even then you can only tackle one base at a time. It's way too fast and spread out to make good decisions and you simply don't have time to zergherd.

You even only have ONE /orders per 5 minutes, opposed to the 3 coms in PS1 per minute.


You have any idea what kind of logistical challenge you propose? This cannot be done in the context of single-two squads at max online outfits, which the majority of outfits consist of.



Just curious, but why is it people like you (I'm generalizing here, forgive me), always make these exageration statements that suggest ANY increase in defensibility would make this instant-Hamburger Hill?


And where do you get this silly notion that people who simply want a skilled group to hold of larger numbers wwant some kind of fortress of doom? We're not talking the 1470 siege of Rhodes (3500 vs at minimum five to perhaps twenty times their numbers), or the second siege of (7500 vs 100.000) here. Pretty damn impressive defensive fortifications, but that's a bit much for a game. We want something consistent between a PS1 AMP station and a PS1 tech/DSC for normal bases, probably a couple exceptions that are harder and for some smaller outposts something more like the PS1 bio lab (quite easy, but not a push-over either if the defenders do it well), more to scale with a tower with courtyard and outer wall than a shed.

I don't think anyone was happy with the Tech Plant, either defenders or attackers, since it was just an unfullfilling meatgrind of two little doors (less doors and SMALLER doors than in PS1, while we all asked for bigger doors, so there was less grind to get in... Especially with more people potentially waiting).



Fact of the matter is, the bases were designed with a deathmatch "modern shooter" style map in mind, while in fact, it should have been based on a "conquest map", which are more linear in advancement. (And yes, you can be more linear, while having a 360 degrees approach on a tower or base, it's a matter of ringed defense design which creates several phases of siege).

I think most players are more in agreement with morganms position than yours.

Given your history of championing preferences that almost no one else likes I would think you might have suspected this.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

I think most players are more in agreement with morganms position than yours.

Given your history of championing preferences that almost no one else likes I would think you might have suspected this.

I think most of the players who agree with Figgy don't give a f*ck anymore and play Airside with rocketpods and Dalton, while people who disagree (that stay on the ground getting farmed), prefer the game to be 2000 player Call of Duty and will leave the game once new CoD arrives.


In other words, please be constructive and respectful. Quoting the entire post to oppose something, that was said in the very beginning, with just 2 sentences looks rather douchy, even if it was never intended.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

I think most players are more in agreement with morganms position than yours.

Given your history of championing preferences that almost no one else likes I would think you might have suspected this.

People never agree with me?
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...5/#post-814504
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...eedback.55422/
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=46776
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=48006
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=43688
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=41711
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=46088
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=49302
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=41034
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=49173
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=44831


I'd show you PS1 development forum, where it used to be impossible to get a coherent unanimous, positive response.

Unfortunately, they deleted that. Should have seen the response to my lattice revision proposal then.

That same thread about Debunking myths over at PS2 beta forums gained me about 70+ likes for the opening post. EVERYONE in the thread agreed and that thread went for 7-8 pages too. I'd be interested to see your likes...

Member: Ghoest Messages: 678 Likes Received: 143
Member: Figment Messages: 657 Likes Received: 608

How many threads do I need to show you to indicate otherwise?


10, 100, 300? You have a very selective memory it seems. Usualy, if people disagree with me in a thread on PS things, it's a total number of three(ish) out of all the posters in said thread... Unless one group in particular feels personally threatened. OR if there's a lot of doubt.

Hell you should have seen the threads on what happened when the AMS was reintroduced. Have you seen just how many threads have been made on rocketpods and other such things being OP? You think all those people would disagree with me as well?


I'd really like to see your "evidence" in terms of a record to support a claim that people tend to disagree with me. Most will disagree on some points and that's only natural. We don't all have the same opinions.




EDIT: Btw, this thread, on spawncamping?
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=50008

40 people agree with me. 15 with you. Of which several are in a zergfit (huge outfit that doesn't need to do defense like other outfits).

I see how the majority tends to agree with you...