What kind of "defensibility" do we want?

NewSith · 2012-12-20, 01:00 PM

I want to quote a guy here, for his concept of defensibility seems to be adopted by many players:

Originally Posted by Sleepy

PS2 lacks several components (not an exhaustive list - there are more) which curtail smaller groups or outfits from feeling more effective:

1) Defensibility. Smaller outfits in PS1 could hold towers and bases from moderately greater numbers, as well as carry out Generator holds, etc.. Defense is where small outfits should most easily find a niche, but PS2's base design offers few killzones; no doors; no swathes of infantry-only areas (underground or otherwise) where vehicles cannot camp and one shot.

2) Defense xp. Yes, the 15% is there supposedly, but it's not enough to encourage it, IMO. Especially given Point #1, where most people don't want to simply be farmed when outnumbered - adding more significant rewards would help this a slight bit.

3) Strategic Meta. In the absence of a Lattice or a game system which might funnel Empires to more predictable areas to conquer, it's tough to know where to set up a Defense - since all hexes can be capped at any time, you could be quite bored awaiting that assault for an hour. Even improving Empire-chat tools might assist in this, as players could report sightings of Enemy movement. All we have is /yell.

As a smallish outfit, you can of course be on Offense as well, but the quick-flipping of territories (5 mins after you cap, it's back to the other side already) and absent Metagame (to feel like it's made a difference), even the Big Outfits will grow bored as well.

The points risen in the post are true and correct.

However, many of you, defensibility supporters, should think on your perception of defensibility. Our (and I mean OUR) experience with developers has shown that if we do not explain in detail what we want, everything results in mutual misunderstanding and devs bringing a change with proper context, but different content.

The best example would be Tech Plant benefit, that upon addition didn't change a single thing (truth be told), considering you can still pull tanks from warpgates, and that's not that much of a ride as compared to PS1. Or what Higby said to that Asian person, about the broken game defense mechanics created specially for people liking behind the lines action. As you can see both are wrong perceptions of proper ideas.

In the clause 1 of the quote, the author (Sleepy) is entirely correct, that most, if not all, designs do not support defensive actions in any way. It's pure truth, that getting camped by tanks inside a spawnbox of death on nearly all outposts and bases brings nothing but frustration.

But that is a TACTICS problem.

Now, you should be aware on the other hand, that the game cannot really offer enough entertainment on a different level. And I am talking about the third clause of the quote. In my opinion (which is not based on a finger pointed at the sky) the game is really predictable when it comes to base captures. You can easily tell which base or outpost will get attacked, that problem still exists. And right when all bases become defensible, the issue of stalemates will rise again. This is something that should be addressed too. I'll expand on that in post scriptum.

And that is a STRATEGY problem.

TL;DR
Get proper idea of what you are asking devs to do.
TACTICS level - needs more defensibility.
STRATEGY level - needs less predictability.

P.S.
Subjective opinion:
Having said that, I must add that after completing this thread I realised that the probable cause of devs breaking down defense lines in the game was pretty much dictated by the need to stop the endless stalemate we were so anxious about back in the Beta. But it occurs to me that devs never understood that the stalemate was never caused by base designs, but by game mechanics, like tanks constantly camp-fighting on Broken Arch. In addition to that, the game will always be a stalemate when a continent is pop-locked, and there's nothing you can do about it. This is how it alwyas was in PS1, every vet knows that. The sole purpose of backhacks was to pull some part of a stalemate force to resecure.

In conclusion: The solutions brought to solve the issue were wrong, because yet again devs percieved the problem from a misguided point of view. And it's not them to blame for that.

Mooseay · 2012-12-20, 01:13 PM

just sayin do we really want every base fight to be like the crown?

NewSith · 2012-12-20, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Mooseay

just sayin do we really want every base fight to be like the crown?

Okay, no hidden offense intended, I'm assuming you prefer to drive a tank.

Because as I said, I don't find the fact that you have to cross a field of tanks and random bullets to get from your spawnpoint to a control node on any more or less significant outpost fun in any way. It is no less valid for towers where attackers have access to 2 control points, as opposed to defenders only having access to one.

Mooseay · 2012-12-20, 01:32 PM

I,m sorry I can't actually understand what you meaning

(geting to the point where I just can't push past the dyslexia ) saw the title got mst of the way through the post and thought I put down the fact that different bases might not help cosedering that I see a lot of zergs just stall there and wait to defend it.

I'm gonna take a hour and come back seee if I can get anything ells out of it

sorry for the stupid post

ringring · 2012-12-20, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Mooseay

just sayin do we really want every base fight to be like the crown?

It depends what you mean by that.

If you mean bases have a strong defender advantage, then yes.

I'd say, with equal sets of defenders/attackers the defenders should be able to hold out indefinately.

With attackers having a 2:1 advantage, they should be able to force a capture, but it should be a slow overrun, rather than a steam-roller.

ofc, if the defenders aren't on the ball they should suffer the consequences.

Back to the OP. I am finding it difficult to reply with anything other than what has been suggested elsewhere many times.

CE
Spawns and gen should be in a secure location that attackers would have to fight their way towards
There should be a secure route from spawns to capture point that cannot be spammed by vehicles.

Crator · 2012-12-20, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Mooseay

just sayin do we really want every base fight to be like the crown?

Hell no. In fact, the Crown should be fixed to be less defensible. The main issue with it is the hill position it has. It's also just a tower, not a base.

Primarily for bases, the objectives should be:

Spawn rooms should NEVER be exposed to the outside where vehicles can spam the exits of them.
SCU and the CC should be positioned adjacent to spawn rooms which give the defenders an advantage. However, there should also be multiple attack vectors strategically laid out so it isn't impossible for the attackers to take control if they are good players. These locations could vary in difficultly for the attackers per location.

boogy · 2012-12-20, 01:56 PM

..and there should be god damn cover from air.

ringring · 2012-12-20, 02:03 PM

The other thing to mention is that there should be a mechanism to prevent base fights going on for too long ......... in the PS1 world this was an Ant but in the PS2 world I suppose it could be something different.

MrBloodworth · 2012-12-20, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mooseay

just sayin do we really want every base fight to be like the crown?

No. Because the crown is a horrible fight, but its a great farm. That's not the same things.

Certainly people want longer engagements than 30 minutes. The best fights have a progression with alternate avenues to effect the flow of battle. Longer fights let you test methods, adapt and try again, etc.. The fights in PS2 right now are normally over then the first tank finds the spawn building.

Wahooo · 2012-12-20, 08:15 PM

I think as long as the crown is 2 factions and not a 3 way it is a good fight. If more bases were defensible the crown wouldn't be where people hole up and wait for the enemy to come at them.

I am confused by the devs actions however. They've been adding bollards and short walls to keep us from, I guess exploiting, safe places to put AMSs inside techplants and AMP stations. It makes me think they not only don't understand what we are saying about base design and the control points/SCU/spawn rooms locations to each other, they don't WANT bases to be defensible. It is unfortunate really. Every night I notice something else that just makes me shake my head, like the doorways to the gen buildings at the Techplants are more easily accessible every direction but the spawn building.

Nolerhn · 2012-12-20, 08:25 PM

What kind of 'defensibility' do we want?

Well, for me personally, I'd like spawn rooms to not be totally campable by vehicles.

In PS1, when the gen or SCU was under attack, you could respawn and make your way to where you needed to be without being harassed by vehicles. Perhaps you would need to get passed chokepoints with Maxes and Heavies and boomers all over the place, but you didn't need to worry about a tank sniping you.

I dunno, to me, there should be a definite clear line of an outer courtyard with vehicles in the mix and very clearly defined area where the actual objectives are fought on foot. Vehicles can still contribute to the fight, but at the core level, battles should be won on foot.

Bases don't feel like bases to me, they feel like sparsely placed structures. I really don't know what should be done about it to be honest.

The Messenger · 2012-12-20, 08:34 PM

I think they added the external generators to the tech plants because they were to easy to defend. Park a sunderer inside the main building, lockdown all infantry entrances and you can defend it almost indefinately. On Matterhson, TR camped the Tawrich techplant during the entire exp weekend. The vanu managed to take it once but the whole three days, I never saw NC in control of it. Whoever had Tawrich had virtually no territory on the rest of the continent. They just turtled and farmed experience.

My biggest gripe are the one or two man squads that run around sabatoging generators and running off. It's tiring having to run back and forth to repair/stabilize generators and resecuring the surounding outposts. It's an endless tug of war with some idiots that want no contest experience. IMO, experience from starting the sabatoge needs to be removed. Only gain experience if the generator blows. If those people want to help their faction, join a squad that is fighting the enemy push.

Timealude · 2012-12-20, 09:00 PM

I Honestly wish the SCUs would make a return to the outpost, along with a shield as well. That way they wont be as camp able, once you take out those 2 then its done..the fight will be over and attackers can just cap the base. The tech plants right now went from the hardest to the easiest bases to capture. It could some what be solved with more walls and gates IE like amp stations, but that would only be a bandage for the bullet wound.

Wahooo · 2012-12-20, 09:06 PM

Amp stations have their own design problems, not just the relation between the spawn point and the capture point, but the buildings and walls and towers are all better suited to the attacker than the defender. Same as many of the outposts around the Techplants, like they were designed with the attacker in mind.

It just seems someone on the DEV team had these really grand but over complicated ideas on potential siege warfare and long drawn out battles. That person had a lot of input on base design initially, then the rest of the team said "uh... wow too complicated lets dumb it down" and it went too far.

boogy · 2012-12-20, 09:17 PM

Yes the walls in this game are for the attackers to shoot into the base and not the other way around. Light Assaults make sure of this. Walls should be tall enough to prevent light assault access as well as only being accessible by the defenders, maybe through teleporters from the spawn room or jump pads.

Also, any base with hills or cliffs overlooking it are, by default, broken, because of tanks.