Concern about base capture mechanics - Page 2

Littleman · 2012-07-22, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

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.

Key word being if. Technically speaking, if the invaders can't already push the original home owners out of the base, their chances of successfully taking it are slim. After all, once the first point is successfully hacked, it's now 1 point vs 5. That's a big lead for the defense.

A good empire will surround the base with friendly hexes and most definitely will make the enemy fight for every inch of land. If we're to focus solely on fighting/preparing within the bases, we're approaching Planetside 2 with entirely the wrong mind set.

I've no doubt bunkers have spawning capabilities. Encouraging in-field spawning without the need for a mobile spawn point would facilitate field combat, so it really would be in the defense and attackers best interest to take territory beyond the base limits if they really want to win.

Doxy · 2012-07-22, 09:14 AM

10 min lock would be ideal imho. Guess we can try and sway dev to this when we are in beta.

maddoggg · 2012-07-22, 09:18 AM

I like OP's idea of a base lock down after the facility is captured(although i feel like 30 mins is too long,i think 10 mins would be better).
I also think that another cool way to handle that potential problem would be to give the team who have just captured the base an even bigger advantage and make it really hard for the oposing team to continue fighting over that base(which would force them to loose ground and retreat).

Littleman · 2012-07-22, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by maddoggg

I like OP's idea of a base lock down after the facility is captured(although i feel like 30 mins is too long,i think 10 mins would be better).
I also think that another cool way to handle that potential problem would be to give the team who have just captured the base an even bigger advantage and make it really hard for the oposing team to continue fighting over that base(which would force them to loose ground and retreat).

The only reason one side should be losing ground is because another is over whelming them, not because of a mechanic giving them little other choice.

I feel like my posts are being ignored for more wild and unfounded imaginings again. The hex system plays a deeper role in everything this time around, including base captures. This is the PS1 vet mindset I fear will permeate PS2: "bases are all that's worth fighting over."

SkilletSoup · 2012-07-22, 09:28 AM

I agree with OP. A 10-15 minute lock would be good for a catch your breath reward and moving the lines up.

Xyntech · 2012-07-22, 09:52 AM

With the ticket system, wouldn't an attacking force have to capture half of the control points (or more, depending on how many surrounding territories each side controlled) in order to take the base?

I imagine it will play out a lot like in the first Planetside. Once the hack goes through or the defenders secure the base, a lone hacker will be quickly killed and the hack resecured. As long as the enemy doesn't control a majority of control points for a majority of the hack time in PS2, the ticket counter will never be in danger of favoring the enemy team.

In PS1, we have the problem that a fight is over, but we still have to sit around for 15 minutes defending a hack to go through, because one lone person could come and undo the entire hack if the console is left unguarded. This will never be a concern in PS2. We can secure a base and freely move on to the next one, only sending rapid responders back to the base if a lone hacker does happen to hack a point or two.

I'm really not seeing this being a major issue. I'd rather see how big a problem it actually is before talking of swaying the devs minds on anything.

FuzzyandBlue · 2012-07-22, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with what you are saying and hope to see awesome strategies forming around the outlying facilities.

My main concern lies in the fact that not every enemy will be dead when the base gets captured. Some may even be standing by a hack point. They can hack a terminal in a matter of seconds and the whole battle starts again.

The more I think about it this problem may be made even worse by outfit play. If all bases are 6 hack points, a smart outfit will try hold three of them if all three empires are fighting, and four of them if its just two empires. Meaning there may always be an enemy or two by those last cap points.

Does anyone know if we've seen any footage of an outlying facility being contested?

bigcracker · 2012-07-22, 10:11 AM

I agree with OP the Hex should be locked for about 15minutes until it can be captured again. Them places look huge so gives the defending team to clear out squads and galaxies

Kezz · 2012-07-22, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by FuzzyandBlue

My main concern lies in the fact that not every enemy will be dead when the base gets captured. Some may even be standing by a hack point. They can hack a terminal in a matter of seconds and the whole battle starts again.

Only it won't. Start again. Not until that remnant has hacked 4 of the 6 points, and there's a chance of the base, in the fullness of time, flipping again. At least that's how I read it. So if there's one "stay behind", you just need one feller to spawn into your base, and follow them round, resecuring the capture points as the interloper moves on to the next. They don't even need to fight, just not get dead for too long.

Xyntech · 2012-07-22, 10:26 AM

Here's where I'm seeing a logical fallacy:

Originally Posted by FuzzyandBlue

My main concern lies in the fact that not every enemy will be dead when the base gets captured. Some may even be standing by a hack point. They can hack a terminal in a matter of seconds

True. But...:

Originally Posted by FuzzyandBlue

and the whole battle starts again.

I think you may be leaping to conclusions here.

The whole battle only starts again if there are enough people to defend those freshly hacked points. If there are enough enemies still around to hold those points, than the battle isn't really over at all, it's just entered a new round of contention.

I actually think this is a good thing. Battles can last as long or as short as they need to. One facility can get captured within a minimum amount of time due to minimal opposition, while another facility will rage through multiple captures and defenses until one side gains the upper hand.

Remember that there is no way to undo a hack process in PS2. You can only resecure a point so that your defensive side gains a maximum amount of tickets and pretty much guarantees that your sides ticket counter will max out first. If there were a timer that prevented a base from being hacked for x amount of minutes after flip or a defense went through, then we would never ever have some of those epic drawn out battles like we had in PS1, where people keep trying to hack the console, and the defenders keep succeeding in resecuring.

Having an unhackable time would also be open to exploits. Have one person log onto an enemy alt and come to hack a friendly base, just so that your side can resecure, get the base defensive cap, and have zero chance of the enemy being able to hack the facility for x amount of time.

If the enemy leaves a few people behind at 3 or 4 of the capture points and hacks them right after the base flips/is defended, then I think the other side is just going to waltz in, kill those few people, and rehack the points. As I said before, if there are enough enemies that the defenders can't do that, then nobody has any proper right to say that the battle is over at all.

Hamma · 2012-07-22, 10:33 AM

It's a bit to early to worry about this stuff there is tons of time to flesh out how these mechanics will work.

Kriegson · 2012-07-22, 10:38 AM

The only issue I have with no "lockdown timer" is that there would be virtually no incentive to move the fight to different facilities.
If a facility can constantly be fought over, what is the incentive to attack anything else? Yeah, you can get pushed out, but why attack a different facility when you can just keep going after that some one you want?

I think a lock time or hex lock is necessary to keep people moving about the map and to prevent things from stagnating over a handful of central bases that everyone is fighting over, all the time.

Hex/Time lock
After a base is captured there is a small window to counter attack (maybe 3 minutes). If no point is successfully hacked after that time period, the base is locked down for a time in order to allow empires to move to other bases rather than sitting and defending the same one.

Alternatively, large facilities that are entirely surrounded with friendly hexes should not be hackable. Towers, outposts and resource mines however should always be capture, and provide a method for back hackers to wreak havok, but not do ridiculous things that should require large amounts of teamwork and manpower otherwise.

Littleman · 2012-07-22, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Kriegson

The only issue I have with no "lockdown timer" is that there would be virtually no incentive to move the fight to different facilities.
If a facility can constantly be fought over, what is the incentive to attack anything else? Yeah, you can get pushed out, but why attack a different facility when you can just keep going after that some one you want?

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. They'll also focus on towers and bunkers, the former having vehicle spawning capabilities, and the latter more than likely having infantry spawning capabilities. The true value in bases this time around is their exclusive access to auraxium. If you need a forward point with vehicle spawning capabilities, towers will do just fine.

Winning in Planetside will involve fighting smarter, not just harder, and over everything, not just bases. Hexes absolutely matter, the base is just a contested area.

Further, ticket gain may very well be based on the status of adjacent hexes. For all we know, hacking a base point but not having a friendly hex nearby might slow ticket gain to an absolute crawl even if the offense has all 6 points.

Finally, I believe in one AGN they mentioned a king of the hill capture system for some bases? It may still use the ticket system, but it's a single contested point within the base.

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. If the base isn't secure, the base isn't secure, regardless of whether or not it switches hands.

Memeotis · 2012-07-22, 12:45 PM

Like Coreldan said. They way they have it now is deliberate, since they only have a few bases and not that many players. They're testing technical stuff now, not mechanics. Once they start having 2000 players per continent, they will start to balance things like a the temporary lock right after base capture.

I think 10 minutes would be good. Not too long, but long enough to discourage outfits from waiting around rather than going to another territory.

Dloan · 2012-07-22, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Littleman

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. If the base isn't secure, the base isn't secure, regardless of whether or not it switches hands.

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.