Feedback on SCUs for Higby

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Ohaunlaim

I like the idea of bringing back the shoot-to-kill on SCUs and of multiple generators to access them.

In fact, multiple generators that must be simultaneously under-hack (ie their hacks must start within 10 seconds of each other) would be very nice as well.

Eh, simultaneous hack is pushing thing a BIT too far in favor of the defenders, plus the whole point of multiple generators is having multiple points of failure so the enemy can't just rush in after pushing a button.

[phungus]

I don't see how SCUs improve gameplay. They are an extra objective, sure, but there are other tactical objectives that would be more enjoyable. All in all SCU's just seem limiting and a holdover from PS1.

Really base capping and player spawning in general need a hard look. I got no idea how to "fix" it, but if you want to play as infantry the name of the game is trying to avoid getting curbstomped by an overwhelming force, all while avoidng being in an overwhelming force which ends up being boring. It's a hard thing to do, and is why playing infantry isn't really any fun in this game.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by phungus

I don't see how SCUs improve gameplay. They are an extra objective, sure, but there are other tactical objectives that would be more enjoyable. All in all SCU's just seem limiting and a holdover from PS1.

...Actually there weren't SCU in PS1... they just had tubes that could be hacked, destroyed, or camped....

[Figment]

From this post:

O. SCU location: must be within spitting distance to spawns. One must have control of rooms directly around spawns to kill them, shows your dominance over the spawn area. ie. Only if infantry is in a position to spawncamp, should they be able to try and tackle the spawns. Infiltrators could have a significant role here.

P. There must be incentive to destroy the SCU over camping: aside from low exp for fresh spawns (more to gain from capture!), the spawns should be a direct threat in your goal to take the CC. As long as the spawns are alive, holding the CC should be a real feat.

Q. Would probably be a good idea to drop spawnroom shields when the SCU goes down so the outpost can be cleared and shields themselves can't be used for farming.

Some examples of a building design under the above principle:





To be applied in:



And a smaller (earlier) version of such a building:

[Hyglak]

SCU can be removed or changed into something different so Defenders can spawn as long as it is their base. More Fighting.

There could be a default spawn in every Base and one spawn in a better location (near A). The one better located could be disabled by destroying the SCU.

The SCU could be given entirely different functions not related to spawning:

- SCU could automatically repair turrets and/or generators at a slow level
- SCU, placed near defenders spawn, could speed up the capping if destroyed (so the uncontested Caps go faster)
- SCU could give defenders a small bonus to their shield or health, whatnot. Make it hackable.
- The SCU replaces the shield generators, an allow no enemy vehicles in the base.
- The SCU could prevent deploying enemy Sunderers inside the base.

[Vashyo]

I really dislike the spawn camp, I think if we had SCU on all bases it would force defenders to take defensive positions around the base more instead of shooting people through the forcefield.

Most players play this game in a very cautious way, they just stick behind cover and wait for enemy to play stupid and it's allways the low levels who do crazy rushes right into the crossfire.

If we had SCU, people would have to be around the base to defend, not just inside one or two buildings. But we do have to make sure the SCUs are relatively easy to defend with a decent sized force otherwise the battles will end too fast, so it shouldnt be far away from the spawnroom.

Ofcourse most people propably just continue the battle anyways since they like the battle aspect of the game, not the strategy. and when some newb or outfit player goes and destroys the SCU, they will most defo get lot of aggro for doing it. We really need more mechanics to make the strategy aspect of the game to be more exciting so the average zergling wants to do something else than just shoot people.

[Takoita]

IMHO, SCU are fine as they are. The problem is base layout.

Also, Kail's suggestion about world feedback is a must-have.

[Shamrock]

How about this, destroying the SCU doesn't stop players from spawning but drops the protective shields on the spawn room doors or makes them flip to neutral and switches off the pain field/or reduces it's effect, allowing the attackers to enter the spawns and flush out the defenders. You could combo this with a definitive count down timer (with either visual and oral ques) on the SCU to inform the defenders that they have only a finite time to re-secure the SCU.

SCU's considering there importance should be in an enclosed room/bunker much like PS1 base generators, allowing the attackers to pack them selves into a gen room for a last ditch defense, and the attackers lobbing every indirect fire weapon they have to dislodge the inevitable medic/engineer/max combos.

[Qwan]

I think that SCU's are perfect the way they are, they have shields and once taken down the owners of that base no longer have the ability to spawn there. I think that the problem is and comes down to is the base worth the effort of taking back. The only large base that has a SCU that is worth fighting for is the tech plant, loss of tank spawning ability can turn a fight real quick. Most of the other large bases we will let go because there is no XP pay out for defending that base. I see alot of the Amp stations and Bio Labs get flipped with little resistance. Sometimes we just let them go, then after they flip we take them back for the big pay out. But over all I believe the SCU's are placed nicely.

[Sheppe]

I'd be happy if the SCU (and Gen) doesn't blow up in your face when you're re-securing it with the little round thing as you press E

[Rothnang]

I generally dislike the extreme focus on disabling spawn points over just killing people in PS2. It leads to a game where it's more effective to die 100 times doing suicide mine-runs on an enemy Sunderer than to be careful with your life.

K/D shouldn't be a dirty word, the game should acknowledge on some level that being careful isn't a bad thing. Right now a strategy that produces a K/D of 0.5 but 100 kills an hour is superior to a strategy that produces a K/D of 2 but only 50 kills an hour.



I would much rather see the SCU as some kind of soft limit system where destroying it gives you a number of respawns that a faction still has available at that base than simply shutting down respawns altogether. I just really want to see some situations in the game where being careful isn't a waste of your time as infantry.

[Stanis]

I posted in more depth on reddit.

the shield->generator->scu model works ok in an infantry fight.
Meaning: it's ok in a biolab.

If we can get most bases to progress from vehicle (hex) to combined arms (base defenses/perimerter) to infantry (CY+base) then the model works fairly well.

That isn't the flow of combat right now.

Otherwise anywhere the SCU is destroyed - that fight has already been fought and lost.

One overlooked reason I feel Biolab base fights work so well is the enemy can't get a sunderer next to the objective. They've got to jump pad, teleport or hop up to the platforms to get back into the fight.
At the other bases vehicles aside the attacker can just park a sundie right next most of the key objectives.


The spawn logistics (ie time from spawn to defence objective) must favour the defender.
Capture should be the primary goal. something like killing the final 'generator' should impede and inconvenience the enemy too.

For example: if the attacker decides to drop the generator which drops spawn shields - it also disables all the teleporters and vehicle terminals.

We could also use the concept of neutral. No faction owns them for a while. It would be nice to see bases slowly repair if the defender can hold their line.
There should be a benefit to encircling a hex. But it ruins the fun if you can't spawn. Maybe it is as simple as tickets only ever increase in favour of the encircled faction - and count as the smallest tick toward the faction unless manned. (meaning an empty hex, encircled will capture itself in 30 mins or just go neutral.)



For the Shield->Generator->SCU (SCS) model to work probably most important is that spawn logistics are consistent across different base types.
Lack of viable infantry combat at most makes it problematic now.

[MrMak]

Originally Posted by Stanis

I posted in more depth on reddit.

the shield->generator->scu model works ok in an infantry fight.
Meaning: it's ok in a biolab.

If we can get most bases to progress from vehicle (hex) to combined arms (base defenses/perimerter) to infantry (CY+base) then the model works fairly well.

That isn't the flow of combat right now.

Otherwise anywhere the SCU is destroyed - that fight has already been fought and lost.

One overlooked reason I feel Biolab base fights work so well is the enemy can't get a sunderer next to the objective. They've got to jump pad, teleport or hop up to the platforms to get back into the fight.
At the other bases vehicles aside the attacker can just park a sundie right next most of the key objectives.


The spawn logistics (ie time from spawn to defence objective) must favour the defender.
Capture should be the primary goal. something like killing the final 'generator' should impede and inconvenience the enemy too.

For example: if the attacker decides to drop the generator which drops spawn shields - it also disables all the teleporters and vehicle terminals.

We could also use the concept of neutral. No faction owns them for a while. It would be nice to see bases slowly repair if the defender can hold their line.
There should be a benefit to encircling a hex. But it ruins the fun if you can't spawn. Maybe it is as simple as tickets only ever increase in favour of the encircled faction - and count as the smallest tick toward the faction unless manned. (meaning an empty hex, encircled will capture itself in 30 mins or just go neutral.)



For the Shield->Generator->SCU (SCS) model to work probably most important is that spawn logistics are consistent across different base types.
Lack of viable infantry combat at most makes it problematic now.

The thing about sunderer spawns is they can be removed. You should not allow them to deploy close to the objectives in the first place. If they can do that and stay there chances are the fight is pretty much over anyway.

I would not be averse to giving players tools that would allow them to hinder AMS deplyment or functionality, as long as its somethign that requires player input and is not too spamable.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by MrMak

The thing about sunderer spawns is they can be removed. You should not allow them to deploy close to the objectives in the first place. If they can do that and stay there chances are the fight is pretty much over anyway.

I would not be averse to giving players tools that would allow them to hinder AMS deplyment or functionality, as long as its somethign that requires player input and is not too spamable.

There you go, 2000 players per map get access to it, but it's not spammable. Good luck with that.



Look, AMS to CC distance is currently usualy shorter than spawns to CC distance.

But distance alone doesn't help. Getting there safely does.



If they put for instance the CC and SCU in a bunker underneath the ground or in a tower, you could have the AMS at an entrance down or up and the spawns at another entrance down and the infantry fight underground/inside. Either way, the distance to SCU and CC from either AMS or spawn would be more equal, preferably in favour of the defenders.

You then also don't get the "defenders are busy defending the spawn from a siege, while on yonder end of the base the fight has already been lost".

That way you don't need AMS deployment restrictions - which would be arbitrary anyway - you can get to the CC as defenders, you can kill the spawns as attackers after quite some effort (without shortcuts) and everyone's happy.



But hey. Maybe that's too logical. Let's continue coming up with band-aid solutions as long as it is nothing that even resembles PS1 in some way, shape or form, right? ¬.¬'

[p0intman]

Originally Posted by Figment

There you go, 2000 players per map get access to it, but it's not spammable. Good luck with that.



Look, AMS to CC distance is currently usualy shorter than spawns to CC distance.

But distance alone doesn't help. Getting there safely does.



If they put for instance the CC and SCU in a bunker underneath the ground or in a tower, you could have the AMS at an entrance down or up and the spawns at another entrance down and the infantry fight underground/inside. Either way, the distance to SCU and CC from either AMS or spawn would be more equal, preferably in favour of the defenders.

You then also don't get the "defenders are busy defending the spawn from a siege, while on yonder end of the base the fight has already been lost".

That way you don't need AMS deployment restrictions - which would be arbitrary anyway - you can get to the CC as defenders, you can kill the spawns as attackers after quite some effort (without shortcuts) and everyone's happy.



But hey. Maybe that's too logical. Let's continue coming up with band-aid solutions as long as it is nothing that even resembles PS1 in some way, shape or form, right? ¬.¬'

naw, cant have anything like that, too much like ps1 and 'too linear' and 'too restrictive' for people who want to play the tanking game.

looooooooooooooool

Edit: heres some advice from a friend of mine:
Why do we bother trying to educate these people and sony? Is it we who are insane, or is it them? I'm not sure.