Fixing small base captures, spawn camping, and solo backhacking

[Lepalose]

Original post is on the PS2 forums @ http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...hacking.98512/


Let's be honest about the small bases.

Very few of these bases are fun to defend. Only a large, organized group has any chances to hold the minor bases - and then it is only a matter of time before they are overrun by vehicles. Once vehicles show up, the spawn rooms become camped and essentially the defenders are useless. Furthermore, the majority of these bases are able to be 'back hacked' by a lone player - which is frustrating to send a couple forces to the middle of nowhere to resecure.

My proposed solution is based on two redesigns:

1. Redesign the small bases so that the spawn room connects to a large building (or two) which infantry can fight in without the vehicle spam. If people know there is chance for some fun - a small infantry fight in a safe building - then you will get more people actually in the area which means a chance to actually defend.

2. Redesigning the capture of the small bases to require attackers to hold more then one point with people actually on the point in order to capture. Ideally there would be three points, one inside the 'infantry only building' (as in point 1) which has a larger capture rate (controls say ~45% of the capture rate) and two outside (that controls ~27.5% of the capture each). Also, the outdoor points should be able to be held by vehicles. Having to require attackers to actively stay on point would ensure that there would be people at these bases to defend against. Having the indoor point control most (but the majority) of the capture rate means that there would be reason for infantry to contest these bases, while still allowing a minor base besieged by vehicles to be captured. Of course, the slow capture rate if vehicles are used solely to capture a base would allow the defending empire opportunity to respond to both small and large engagements at these bases.


Consequences of the proposed changes:

1. There would be at least 2 - 3 people required to be at a minor base when attacking. Requiring them to stay on point to capture means that defenders would have a natural advantage on a 2v2 or 3v3 basis as defenders need some kind of force multiplier effect in this size of battle. For instance, one capable defender in these small fights should be able to slow the hack rate down significantly by controlling (or continually flipping) the inner capture point until reinforcements arrive to help either side.

2. With contested buildings safe from vehicle spam, you are practically guaranteed at least some infantry action. This means that if you just want to 'find a fight' pretty much ANY minor base being hacked will have something for you to kill in a quick and fun way. If you want to run a Gal hot-drop squad of elite infantrymen? You can lock down the minor bases indoor points - and with support of a single aircraft sitting on point, or sending one player to an outdoor point, you can now take these bases in hopefully fun, meaningful ways. But of course, if you are defending and have vehicles you can fairly easily resecure against small squad back hackers.

3. The importance of vehicles at these bases still dominate the over all control . Attacker vehicles can hold points (which means those tanks that sit around actually have something useful to do now), which if a base is left undefended would be enough to eventually cause capture. This allows attackers to effectively siege a base even if infantry forces are losing inside a building, ensuring the hack continues even if the inside point is flippingg back and forward. However at a small engagement of vehicles, this should give defenders' vehicles an advantage since you have an idea of where the attackers vehicles are going to be. Furthermore, defender vehicles can do hit and run tactics while attacking vehicles must maintain position in order to support the capture. In a larger engagement, defenders can still strike the outside capture points with vehicles forcing the attackers to move to support these capture points.

4. To be honest, these changes would make the fights similar to the larger tower fights that happen - vehicles camping outside, defenders and attackers fighting inside. The difference would be that the defenders do not have the 'elevation advantage' of towers, but instead are fully protected from vehicle spam to be able to control one point. I think that trade-off is fair. Also, if this system was put into place, I am of the opinion that the towers would also need (slightly) more protection from vehicle spam to continue to make them more defensible then the minor bases.

5. The final consequence of this is that there would be more bases being fought over, and that these engagements would likely last longer. This is a good thing in my opinion; the time to win these bases would still be relatively short compared to major bases which gives players who are just playing for 30 minutes or an hour a relatively achievable goal with a sense of accomplishment (or failure). It also promotes individuals (not just strategic-minded groups) reasons to spread the fight out to many locations.

Thoughts?

tl;dr
1. Connect spawns to non-vehicle spammed building with a capture point on small bases
2. Small base capture points should require people to be on them put one inside the non-vehicle spam building, and two outside which are capable by vehicles

[Lepalose]

For clarity: I am suggesting that they actually make the outdoor points cap-able by vehicles again - and in fact design the outdoor points specifically to allow vehicles to pull up beside them. They could be in fact placed at a bit of a distance from the spawn room, and ideally will not have direct line of sight on spawn room. This would mean vehicles would have a place to go to at minor bases that would not be simply moving into spamming positions on spawn room.

[typhaon]

I've run into a few smaller bases that are fun to defend....

I think it helps when they are out in the open and there are few places for vehicles to hide and shell. This lets defenders whittle away at the vehicles with rockets.

There can't be spaces for vehicles to get above the base and angle HE rounds into the defenders... when that happens, it usually GG very quickly.

The outpost itself needs a sort of exterior wall... not solid... but with only a few tight entrances. Vehicles can still enter, but find themselves in very close quarters. More buildings give the defenders more places to hide from the inevitable Liberator spam... Sniperside... while still being able to ambush incoming infantry and vehicles.

Also helps if at least one exit from the spawn faces INTO the interior of the outpost and allows defenders to quickly get into a building or two, with multiple exits and firing options.

[Lepalose]

Vehicle spam at the spawn of smaller bases is indeed what makes them so frustrating. Your ideas I think are valid as well in preventing this issue.

Of course, I still think the smaller bases are meant to be fought over by vehicles and that they should be able to control these bases. So if they can get rid of the spawn farming via vehicles while still giving the vehicles something to do then these fights would be a lot better

[RedKartel]

I like the idea, hope this will be tested, thanks for sharing!