The n+1 problem

[p0intman]

There are many problems in the game with relation to the broader aspect of what some like to call 'battle flow'. It is that, in order to defeat any opponent at any facility, you only need to throw n+1 of your own at them in order to win.
There are few, if any locations in the game that can be called 'strategic'. Of the handful that do exist, I am going to refrain from naming them, because I have no desire for them to receive any attention. Attention to such places, has by and large, resulted in very negative changes to them.

Developers have in the past stated they don't want bases "to take all of an empire's resources to take" (ie, the crown, for example, has been used as an example by Higby). And while that is not a bad thing, it should not be something where you can merely overpower defenders with mass amounts of air power at most facilities, or the same with armor. That situation has existed for some time now, to the frustration of people who enjoy playing as infantry.

It is my opinion that most facilities, large and small, should have the capacity to allow a smaller force to hold out against larger numbers if they have the skill and coordination to do so. That is to say, I do not believe that the notion of simply throwing mass numbers around is a healthy all-encompassing tactic for the game to reward. This would require most facilities being redone in order to draw a definitive, non-negotiable line between where vehicular combat and infantry combat happens.

It would also require bases to be built to be defensible such that a facility under siege can be reinforced and defenders can push out and re-take the facility. This is currently impossible in the current paradigm, unless you arrive from outside of the fight and hit the problem from the outside with far superior numbers and speed. While this is not bad, and is a valid tactic, it requires having huge numbers at your disposal, and being able to throw them around very quickly and in a short amount of time. That is a problem, because most outfits simply don't.

[Mordelicius]

Originally Posted by p0intman

There are many problems in the game with relation to the broader aspect of what some like to call 'battle flow'. It is that, in order to defeat any opponent at any facility, you only need to throw n+1 of your own at them in order to win.
There are few, if any locations in the game that can be called 'strategic'. Of the handful that do exist, I am going to refrain from naming them, because I have no desire for them to receive any attention. Attention to such places, has by and large, resulted in very negative changes to them.

Developers have in the past stated they don't want bases "to take all of an empire's resources to take" (ie, the crown, for example, has been used as an example by Higby). And while that is not a bad thing, it should not be something where you can merely overpower defenders with mass amounts of air power at most facilities, or the same with armor. That situation has existed for some time now, to the frustration of people who enjoy playing as infantry.

It is my opinion that most facilities, large and small, should have the capacity to allow a smaller force to hold out against larger numbers if they have the skill and coordination to do so. That is to say, I do not believe that the notion of simply throwing mass numbers around is a healthy all-encompassing tactic for the game to reward. This would require most facilities being redone in order to draw a definitive, non-negotiable line between where vehicular combat and infantry combat happens.

It would also require bases to be built to be defensible such that a facility under siege can be reinforced and defenders can push out and re-take the facility. This is currently impossible in the current paradigm, unless you arrive from outside of the fight and hit the problem from the outside with far superior numbers and speed. While this is not bad, and is a valid tactic, it requires having huge numbers at your disposal, and being able to throw them around very quickly and in a short amount of time. That is a problem, because most outfits simply don't.

I disagree with the N+1 argument. A base is defensible as long as the Sunderer keep getting taken out. The smaller the base is, the harder it is to take out the Sunderer(s). This is why imo, each base should have a AV turret and an AA turret built in. Of course there is always a point where N+x will yield victory, but it's not absolute and not in the majority of bases.

The new Rush Lanes system imo will solve the battleflow problem, especially with the new random Instant Action they implemented. The problem is it seems to be still months away.

As i've mentioned in other threads, the new random Instant Action shattered the flow of battles. Players are still getting used to it and adjusting by using vehicles to travel. It's because players scatter too much and a big fight ends

[Ghoest9]

No. We dont need improved defenses most places.

We need improved motivation to defend.
-better rewards
-remove k/d and death count

If more places were as defensible as the crown the game would be lame.

[Sledgecrushr]

Youre right Pointman. This game was designed with the n+1 philosophy in mind. The developers knew early on that their game could not support a tremendous mass of players in one spot. So they made the decision to make these bases indefensible so the game would run smoothly. Now as soe makes strides in optimization there has to be changes in base design to reflect the growing capacity of this game to support larger numbers in one spot.
In my opinion defensibility should become more available as the game becomes better able to handle larger numbers of people in one spot.

[Silent Thunder]

The trick is to make it able to be defended in a good way, as I would hate to see a return to something like the old tech plants, where "defense" merely meant point a ton of emplaced guns at the back door, and hope the enemy isn't smart enough to send LAs en mass through the sides.

[Snydenthur]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

No. We dont need improved defenses most places.

We need improved motivation to defend.
-better rewards
-remove k/d and death count

If more places were as defensible as the crown the game would be lame.

Only better rewards would be sufficient. Removing kd-ratio wouldn't change things at all.

Currently you'll just get +x% to your xp for defending. Give some fixed amount of xp too and watch people defend. Like the alerts-system. People actually try to take continents when it happens although it doesn't give that much reward.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

No. We dont need improved defenses most places.

We need improved motivation to defend.
-better rewards
-remove k/d and death count

If more places were as defensible as the crown the game would be lame.

If this one is a troll, it's a pretty fat one...

If every place was like the Crown, the game would be better, and there is no other of looking at it. Because strategy would've been involved. Because "CrownSide" wouldn't have existed in the first place. Because zerg would actually fail to do their merry-go-round thing all the time. Because it would take EFFORT to attack something.

The Zerg (which is by definition - players that do not play for objective, they play just to play, to chill out) will never be attracted by ANY kind of reward. You need EFFORT to attack something to equate it to effort you need to defend, instead of trying to equalize the rewards. Right now it's just a question of getting an AMS as close as possible to the objective and there you have it. N+1 in action.

[NewSith]

Why does N+1 work:

• Sunderers are quicker to use than the base spawns. This makes Sunderer a flood machine.
• Base layouts are designed in a way that Sunderers provide better spawning for defenders than the static spawns.
• Most towers and outposts are designed so that 2 points are situated outside and only 1 is situated inside. This gives attacker a rock-solid advantage.
• Chokepoints are near absent in most facility designs.
• Interior designs are rarely truly interior. The very windows problem everyone remembers.
• Base AV turrets cannot defeat an MBT 1v1.
• Lack of visual distinction for important hexes, based on how often people ignore base satellites or small outposts (that is THE ONLY thing the new "SemiLattice" is going to fix).
• Most defensible facilities are for some reason placed to the side of an actual "battleflow", like say The Bastion, Raven Landing, The Crown, etc.
• Many defensible hexes are not truly defensible, because they either face the wrong direction (Lithcorp Secure Mine), or have a severe case of lower ground/holes in the perimeter (Howling Pass Checkpoint).

Red is what is not mentioned as being worked on.
Green is what is mentioned as being worked on.


You can add that to the OP if you agree, pointman.

[DarkBalths]

There's nothing wrong with defending as it is now. If you get your ass handed to you because the enemy has more men, maybe it's because you and your teammates just don't know how to defend a base properly. How about instead of trying to get the game changed so that you'll be good at it, you adjust your playstyle so that you can actually defend properly?

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by DarkBalths

There's nothing wrong with defending as it is now. If you get your ass handed to you because the enemy has more men, maybe it's because you and your teammates just don't know how to defend a base properly. How about instead of trying to get the game changed so that you'll be good at it, you adjust your playstyle so that you can actually defend properly?

How about instead of speaking about something you have no idea of, you go and actually stop playing with the zerg and go on a defense for once?


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My argument here is just as valid as yours.

[Kerrec]

I really don't understand this "N+1" thing.

Are you arguing that for N defenders, attackers only need to bring N+1 to win? Or vice versa?

Or are you saying that if you don't succeed at an attack/defense with N, you just keep increasing N until you succeed?

I can think of many situations in my personal game play that puts the lie to either theory. I have defended against larger numbers successfully until they lost adjacency and couldn't accomplish their objectives. Or there are many instances where we successfully attacked a larger defending force successfully.

So no, N+1 is not a rule in any way that supports my experiences in PS2. Besides, there is no rule or game mechanic that prevents one team from increasing "N" while allowing the other team to do so.

Having superior numbers is one of many tactics to complete an objective. It happens to be the "easier" tactic, and human nature will always gravitate towards what is easiest to accomplish. But that doesn't mean it is the only tactic or an absolute rule.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

I really don't understand this "N+1" thing.

Are you arguing that for N defenders, attackers only need to bring N+1 to win? Or vice versa?

Or are you saying that if you don't succeed at an attack/defense with N, you just keep increasing N until you succeed?

I can think of many situations in my personal game play that puts the lie to either theory. I have defended against larger numbers successfully until they lost adjacency and couldn't accomplish their objectives. Or there are many instances where we successfully attacked a larger defending force successfully.

So no, N+1 is not a rule in any way that supports my experiences in PS2. Besides, there is no rule or game mechanic that prevents one team from increasing "N" while allowing the other team to do so.

Having superior numbers is one of many tactics to complete an objective. It happens to be the "easier" tactic, and human nature will always gravitate towards what is easiest to accomplish. But that doesn't mean it is the only tactic or an absolute rule.

N+1 means something akin to the first.

It means that on equal terms (teamplay, luck and personal-skill wise), attackers only need one person to tip the balance towards them. The reason for that being generally that the designs do not give enough advantage to defenders. In reality the current facility engagements are not really that different from engagements on an open field.


With "N+1" as preferred to be described by pointman, "N" is not the key value here, "1" is, for it is too small of a number for an Attack-Defense concept.

[Kail]

The only problem I have with "defensibility" is that once a base is compromised you're boned, which means you have to have a solid defense before the attackers even arrive. Which rush lanes will hopefully help with.

Originally Posted by Kerrec

I can think of many situations in my personal game play that puts the lie to either theory. I have defended against larger numbers successfully until they lost adjacency and couldn't accomplish their objectives. Or there are many instances where we successfully attacked a larger defending force successfully.

It's been the same for me as well, so I have trouble relating to these type of posts. Not to mention that if it takes a whole enemy platoon to root out your squad... isn't that a compliment to your squad? And you did do your job; you slowed enemy progress and required them to divert troops that could have been used elsewhere.

[Mox]

Pointman & NewSith you guys are right.
90% of the bases and facilities in ps2 are like swiss cheese. Its almost undefendable. Combined with shitty spawnroom design/positions (tunnels are still no real improvement) and the stupid location of the some capture points the attackers are even in the better position then the defenders in some cases.

[mrmrmrj]

What if the defending faction had some relief from the sunderer proximity limitations?