Concern about base capture mechanics

[FuzzyandBlue]

I watched Higby's stream earlier today and had a concern about base capture. Everything we have seen in the footage that we have is that once a base is captured falls fully under the capturing factions control. But within a minute or so someone hacks a terminal and everyone starts fighting over the exact same base.

A concern that I have seen pop up several times is that front lines will never change. Usually this concern centers around footholds, but as I see it bases being instantly open for hacking will lend to never moving front lines than footholds will.

My solution would be to add a temporary lock to a captured base, 30 mins as an example, It would whoever owned the base after the battle to clean up the remnants of the enemy and organize an attack on another base.

I don't know if there is any information about my question but if anyone has any more info I'd love to know.

[Yutty]

30 mins seems bit too long. I'd think a 2 min lock would be ok

[Rivenshield]

I hadn't even thought of that.

OP raises a salient point. And he has a good idea.

[SFJake]

I think it would be wiser to find ways to make it harder instead of just making it literally impossible. Removing possibilities completely isn't an ideal solution in my mind, -if- this is a problem.

[p0intman]

keep this in mind: when a base is captured in PS1, it is immediately contestable by anyone who has a valid link to the base. Weather or not they will hold it through the hack or not, however, is entirely decided by the firepower left inside the base. So in theory, all the capturing team would need to do is reassault the capture points and resecure them to clean the base up.

[FuzzyandBlue]

Originally Posted by p0intman

keep this in mind: when a base is captured in PS1, it is immediately contestable by anyone who has a valid link to the base. Weather or not they will hold it through the hack or not, however, is entirely decided by the firepower left inside the base. So in theory, all the capturing team would need to do is reassault the capture points and resecure them to clean the base up.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there just one hack point and a tower per base in PS1?
Zurvan amp station has 6 hack points, in fact I think every base we have seen since E3 has had 6 points. All one has to do is hack one point and the whole battle will start again.

I never played PS1 myself but have watched several streams and videos. One thing I never saw was a base being contested over and over again. I usually saw the victors regroup and attack. While the losers would fall back to their next base and try to defend or attack a different point.

[SpcFarlen]

I dont really think adding a longer timer helps get rid of stagnant front line combat. If capture times are larger it means a larger force is needed to attack and secure. So taking a galaxy, doing a drop behind lines then becomes more limited because their odds of taking a base and repelling attack for 30 minutes becomes much much harder. So in a way that would facilitate frontline combat since there isnt the risk of getting a counter attack from all sides within that time frame.

[p0intman]

Originally Posted by FuzzyandBlue

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there just one hack point and a tower per base in PS1?
Zurvan amp station has 6 hack points, in fact I think every base we have seen since E3 has had 6 points. All one has to do is hack one point and the whole battle will start again.

I never played PS1 myself but have watched several streams and videos. One thing I never saw was a base being contested over and over again. I usually saw the victors regroup and attack. While the losers would fall back to their next base and try to defend or attack a different point.

Granted, though I'm pretty sure if you resecure just that one point then its fine. You'll have to definitely test that in beta. It affects things I'm concerned about quite a bit.

[Sabot]

To me it seems that spawn points in bases are actually pretty far from the other caputure points, so it's just up to whoever owns the base to clean up properly...

[SgtMAD]

I liked the base capture/defend system I saw,it looked like it was a shitload of fun to play

[MCYRook]

Originally Posted by FuzzyandBlue

My solution would be to add a temporary lock to a captured base, 30 mins as an example, It would whoever owned the base after the battle to clean up the remnants of the enemy and organize an attack on another base.

The cleaning up has more to do with eliminating spawn points than with the control points. If an empire has just capped/defended a base, that typically means they already hold the majority of the cap points. So what if an opposing empire sits on one CP still and re-hacks it right away - they're not gonna take the base off of that. And if you eliminate their spawns, they won't be able to reinforce.

On the other hand, if CPs were locked for some duration after a battle, but the opponents still have Galaxies and whatnot around, PS1 experience says they WILL still stay and fight there, even if they cannot even hack the base.

So I share the concern that battle flow in PS2 might be somewhat static, but I don't think the issue lies with the bases being contestable at any time. Beta will tell if it really is a problem tho.

[Littleman]

Yes, people will simply rehack. If someone is bringing even a modicum of strategic thought to this fight, they'll be pushing beyond the base even during the assault. Adjacent hexes have benefits to captures, remember that. If the hacking team doesn't have adjacent hexes, they should most definitely lose the fight. Slower hack times or slower ticket gain, whatever the adjustment, no adjacent hexes only hurts the hack.

Also, since SOI's will likely deny enemy squad spawning within them and possibly even galaxy/sunderer spawning, capturing the base is a matter of the defense mopping up and making it too difficult to get back to the base to hack any part of it by, again, capturing hexes beyond the base.

Always fight like you're on the offense. Always fight to move forward.

[EisenKreutzer]

It seems to me that control of spawn points is just as important as control of the base. beta will tell if this is an issue.

[Attackmack]

Agree with OP.

Although im aware that these streams and vids are from the beta test with functions and settings that will probably not be in the retail, I'm still very concerned that capturing/defending a base will not yield the same sense of accomplishment as it did in PS1.

My first two thoughts is:

-that there should be (as in PS1) a hacking tool required to hack consoles, and without a proper hacking cert it should take a LONG time to finish. This have been talked to death, I know, but even though they are aiming to please casual gamers (and kids?) its shouldn't be to hard to learn that one is required to hack.

-After a base switches ownership, or is secured after some time being contested, there should be a lockdown for at least 15 mins, maybe longer, before the consoles are open for hacking again.


This gives a better sense of actually accomplishing something AND it gives all involved factions a chance to regroup and reassign missions and overall change of strategy/targets.

I really do hope that when game finally goes retail, there will be mechanics stopping the endless run n gun for control points (what is shown so far looks more like a round of COD domination).

[Coreldan]

I'm not too concerned just yet, partially cos it seems the testing it still limited to a few bases, so they dont seem to have that much options to go anywhere else except just keep attacking the same base.

That said, the concern is valid and I'm 100% sure some temporary lock or something will be implemented if fights will just keep revolving around same bases.