[Suggestion] Base Capture, Disparity of Equivalent Force Factor (DEFF)

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Amador, Sep 30, 2021.

  1. Amador

    Upon my recent return to Planetside 2, I've been reintroduced to a long-standing dilemma regarding base capture. Most particularly circumstances where there is a sizeable offensive occupation, against a defense that's become trivial, abandoned or outright non-existent.

    This concern was originally raised from situations where an opposing force that was formerly present, suddenly packs up and abandons a location. Leaving the occupiers uncertain of their return and obligated to stand around for security and wait out the timer's full duration until the base is captured.

    A commonly exploited tactic, that has no remedy... Unless there is a "Disparity of Equivalent Force Factor"...

    I still feel that the "Territorial Influence" hexagonal system should remain as a core factor in determining the total time required to capture. However it is also my perspective that if an occupying force is so overwhelming, that it should also be a contributing factor in expediting the capture by a set multiplication factor that exceeds the size of the opposing force. Or vice versa.

    After all, sitting around waiting for a base to capture with little or no resistance is not very enjoyable.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Below is a list of the common enemy force sizes, with the included time speed bonus factor suggestion.
    • Allies/Enemies Detected: None - - (Tier 0 [0x] Timer Bonus)
    • Allies/Enemies Detected: 1-12 - - - (Tier 1 [0.5x] Timer Bonus)
    • Allies/Enemies Detected: 12-24 - - (Tier 2 [1.0x] Timer Bonus)
    • Allies/Enemies Detected: 24-48 - - (Tier 3 [1.5x] Timer Bonus)
    • Allies/Enemies Detected: 48-96 - - (Tier 4 [2.0x] Timer Bonus)
    • Allies/Enemies Detected: 96+ - - - (Tier 5 [2.5x] Timer Bonus)
    (NOTE: The Territorial Influence factor will not be included for this explanation as it is varies from base to base. However, do understand that the "Timer Bonus" is simply added to the Territorial Influence factor to either increase or decrease the timer, all due to the Disparity of Equivalent Force Factor.)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Which essentially breaks down into...

    • Enemies Detected: 1-12 (Tier 1 [0.5x] Timer Bonus)
    • Allies Detected: 24-48 (Tier 3 [1.5x] Timer Bonus)
    Disparity of Equivalent Force Factor = +1.0x Timer Bonus + Territorial Influence modifier, in favor of Allies.

    • Enemies Detected: 12-24 (Tier 2 [1.0x] Timer Bonus)
    • Allies Detected: 12-24 (Tier 2 [1.0x] Timer Bonus)
    Disparity of Equivalent Force Factor = +0.0x Timer Bonus. Enemy and Allied forces are equal, no bonus.

    • Enemies Detected: 48-96 (Tier 4 [2.0x] Timer Bonus)
    • Allies Detected: 24-48 (Tier 3 [1.5x] Timer Bonus)
    Disparity of Equivalent Force Factor = +0.5x Timer Bonus + Territorial Influence modifier, in favor of Enemies.

    • Enemies Detected: None (Tier 0 [0x] Timer Bonus)
    • Allies Detected: 96+ (Tier 5 [2.5x] Timer Bonus)
    Disparity of Equivalent Force Factor = +2.5x Timer Bonus + Territorial Influence modifier, in favor of Allies.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    This essentially means that the Disparity of Equivalent Force Factor will result in the quicker capture/loss of bases that are grossly overwhelmed. However the Disparity of Equivalent Force Factor will also ensure that when two forces of equal size meet, they will have a more traditional drawn-out conflict.

    This will result in a more liquid front line system, where lack of resistance can cause an entire front line to collapse, if not confronted. This new system should hopefully result in less time spent waiting, and more time creating an atmosphere where large-scale threats must be confronted head-on, rather than commonly ignored or avoided.

    After all... Numbers Matter™

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Do understand this a theoretical suggestion, for the sake of brainstorming upon a new approach to base capture.
    • Up x 1
  2. Demigan

    So you are basically asking for a Zerg multiplier which makes it easier to capture bases?

    The phenomenon you describe is that certain parts of defending a base arent fun because they were actively made useless. Spawnroom design makes it easier for attackers to prevent the defenders retaking the base. Then once the base is taken the attackers, who stuck around for the cap xp, take their time getting to the next base which will likely see a repeat of the same situation unless its a large tough base where defenders actually stand a chance of protecting it.

    Instead of supercharging zergs which already have it too easy why dont you make it fun and possible for defenders to actually defend the base down to the last second? And I dont mean "this one time was memorable because we retook the base at the last second". I mean "it is regularly possible for defenders to retake the base because the base actually does not hold the defenders back".

    If anything you should reverse the multipliers. There is no reason to reward the attackers in a 96+vs96+ fight with faster captures. "Sorry defenders, you only had 1,6 up to 2.8 minutes to retake the base after the attackers tried to take the points for half an hour". That is neither fun nor fair. It would be more fair to punish the attackers for bringing an overpop to a fight. But punishing is almost always a bad idea, so lets start with making it more fair for defenders. Add ways to fight on from the spawn, add ways to retake points that are obviously hard to capture within the current 4 minutes (small bases) or 7 minutes (large bases) of time. Add ways for defenders to still fight effectively even when outpopped so zerging becomes less effective.

    Dont reward the arguably worst tactics in the game.
  3. Amador

    Yes. But only under the circumstance where bases are grossly undefended. Allowing an empire to progressively advance further and further until they meet equivalent contact which would then equalize the DEFF effect.

    Do know that I understand what you're saying in this regard. But there's other things to speak of.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    The "Zerg" term has been around since the fine days of Planetside 1, reaching back for many, many years... The aspect of quantity over quality has its own benefits. If this is a known aspect of Planetside 1 & 2, and the game is indeed an MMO FPS which replicates the large scale of war more so than any other game, what is so bad about it?

    It is not unusual for new players, or even casual players to huddle together, as there is inherent safety in strength and numbers. This even takes place in actual war, even if it is only a representation in game.

    Which I can't help but ask you a question...

    Why do you and many other players feel that the "Zerg" is terrible, when it has been an inherent aspect of Planetside since 2003 up to today in 2021, which equates to being an 18 year old legacy?

    That is also why we urged the re-implementation of the "lattice" system in PS1 for PS2, as begrudgingly agreed to by the former SOE developmental team. Despite their grumbling, it worked out for the better. Even though in PS1, the lattice system applied only to major bases. In PS2, it connects every large base and small base.

    But I digress.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    <Optional Nostalgic Rant Below:>
    Additionally, I've always found it puzzling that there are players in Planetside that strive for small-scale CoD style conflict, knowing they are actively engaged in a game who's key feature is massive conflict. To be engaged in a small-scale conflict, and then to have it suddenly escalate into a large-scale conflict is the nature of the game.

    If people are truly put-off by the "Zerg" aspect of Planetside, I feel that the issue itself may have been aggravated by the intentional design of Planetside 2. The "Zerg" existed in Planetside 1 and was great fun, but the "Zerg" in Planetside 2 has no guidance.

    I'll explain why that is so...

    Back in Planetside 1, we had players called a "CR5" (Command Rank 5) whom were experienced players who essentially became faction leaders - I was one of them. We had the ability to directly communicate with our faction using a broadcast directed at a specific continent, or to speak to our entire faction using /global chat. As a CR5, if we wanted the "Zerg" to shift to a different base or a completely different continent, we would simply say so. And shockingly enough, the community we had at the time was cooperative enough to frequently listen and heed our direction.

    Everything about the "Command Rank" system in Planetside 1, which was a core feature, was flat-out abandoned in Planetside 2. Which is why you have largely misguided "Zerg" problems.

    The critically important CR5 features of PS2 do not exist. PS2 has no control over the "Zerg" and was a major flaw in its original design and remains to this day. To abandon the "Command Rank" system was to abandon the opportunity to forge an in-depth cooperative community.

    For example, if CR5 players existed in PS2 and you were on Indar and just captured Crossroads Watchtower you could use CR5 continental chat and tell your entire faction to head to Regent Rock Garrison, instead of The Crown.

    This is the control that CR5 players had over the faction which you don't have in PS2, it's also why the community is kinda "derpy" sometimes. Also probably explains why the developers had to make a "New Player Experience" so new players know what they're doing - which probably would've been resolved if there were CR5's telling people where to go in the first place. Bigbrain stuff, I know.

    Furthermore in Planetside 1, to engage in 3-way conflicts was a rarity. To have all 3 empires upon a single continent was considered very, very fun, but also a terrible waste of time and effort. That was because back in the days of Planetside 1, you had to 100% fully capture a continent to own it. Meaning that for all 3 factions to be on a single continent would result in a stalemate.

    So Planetside 2 suffers from severe "Zerg" syndrome due to how close the bases are to each other, which is within running distance most of the time. The ability to deploy a spawn beacon, respawn, redeploy or join combat allows for an entire army to practically spawn out of thin air. And the fact that PS2 is a perpetual 3-way. And there's no "Command Rank 5" (CR5) structure in PS2 to control them.

    These are merely symptoms of an intentionally and poorly designed system. I do hope when they make PS3, they make it more like PS1. And they should seek the advice and counsel from players who are veterans before they ruin it like PS2 was.

    I am honestly shocked why PS2 hasn't made a bold effort to return to its better PS1 roots.
  4. RabidIBM

    Welcome back to the game. You'll notice that a lot has changed, and some things haven't.

    This proposed change would probably not be well received by many currently in the game. Frankly, 4 minutes isn't that long to wait anyways, and if there is any thought going into the defensive reaction (big if) then they may need the time to set up at the next base in line if the one already going down is a lost cause. I've certainly done this myself when leading platoons. If the base is already hard spawn camped with entrenched enemies then it is often better to fall back 1 base and be the entrenched faction to turn the momentum around.

    Additionally the players this game has retained have gotten to be far more efficient at the "whiplash" or "redeployside" meta than they were at launch. Galaxies don't sit at the warpgate for 5+ minutes waiting for people anymore, vehicle columns don't take 10 minutes to get together. This 2.5x multiplier would reduce a typical base capture timer to 96 seconds if everything were perfectly efficient. Believe me, with the redeployside being at the level it's on now, they would certainly have that down to under 120 seconds. It wouldn't be perfect efficiency, but it wouldn't be that much off of it either. With redeploy and beacon plays, an uncountered zerg could reach a warpgate before the bulk of the current player base checked the map.

    That's another change I need to point out, a large portion of the player base seem to no longer look at the map anymore than they need to in order to find the fight. There was a long period of slow and steady pandering to such play styles at the expense of players trying to play the map, followed by a snap 180. They spent a long period slowly squeezing players who didn't want to spend all day at a bio lab or T.I. Alloys out of the game, then closed T.I. Alloys for 6 months because players weren't leaving it. You'll notice things like that if you try to capture the last satellite base for a bio lab to secure it and free up 48-96 of your faction pop who've been there for an hour, the enemy 48-96 will drop back to stop you and save the satellite base, but your own team will sit in the bio lab waiting for the farm to come back. Some will also yell chat at you to stop taking the satellite base because you're ruining the farm. 48-96 of your own team will celebrate your failure to capture the satellite base because your failure means they get their farm back. While this is going on the 3rd faction are either painting the whole map or drilling to the bio lab to join the farm.

    It's a rare treat when all 3 factions have some leaders online who can actually manage proper ops and deliver the war that Planetside is meant to be. Otherwise most of the game play is either the previously mentioned zergs where one of the leaders will be logged in, but running more of a social gathering where they hang around, take bases, and sometimes shoot a few fools, or it's the players who are just looking for the FPS side of the game and don't care for the continental war.

    Sorry about this turning into a bit of a negative tangent, but this is pretty much the state we're in. Regarding your point about force presence, it would likely be better to achieve it by changing the bases to have shorter capture timers with more points. Some of the amp stations now have 2:20 timers and 3 points. If the defenders bring enough to get the musical chairs going, or hold 1 point it's a drawn out fight. If the defenders no show then the amp station falls quickly. Others still have the single point with a 7 minute timer. I bring this up because I don't like the thought of the current big shot implementing a new game mechanic.
    • Up x 1
  5. Demigan

    The point is that you ignore why something is grossly underdefended, and that you stack a reward on zerging that is undeserved and not promoting good gameplay.
    Bases are "grossly underdefended" mostly because of two reasons. one is that if a zerg lands somewhere with few defenders it is not enjoyable for defenders to try and join the fight and equalize the pops. It takes more effort and organization to get enough defenders ready than it is to organize an attack. Attackers get to choose a base with low pop to attack while defenders have to gather enough forces to at minimum equalize the pop and the attackers have far less time pressures. The other is that at a certain point defending becomes useless as the bases arent designed to let defenders retake the points, causing defenders to leave. To add insult to injury almost only big bases are designed to be defended, causing the usual zerg suddenly going down a lane until they meet a big base.
    You also say "zerging is an advantage, so lets make it easier" essentially.

    Because its the antithesis of the game. The objectives are designed to ensure player interaction with opposing enemies, which is what the game is about. Zerging is designed to shut down the fight and prevent anything from happening. This results in your problem of having to wait for a timer to go down and defenders leaving. Rather than fix it so fights can continue and zergs dont shut down fights you then say "lets encourage players to zerg more".

    Just because something has existed and is effective does not mean it should be cherished and rewarded. Quite the opposite in this case, we need to make sure that players will always be able and willing to fight regardless of how outpopped they are, rather than saying "whelp, cant defend against this there's too little time to even organize enough defenders outside of a Zergfit using redeployside".

    Neither is it unusual for veterans to do it. Its an easy strategy for everyone and there are natural ways for Zergs to form, but few natural ways for anti-zergs to form.

    As for the rest, nostalgia and being "right" once does not justify anything you say.
  6. Betasrealm

    I would say just exponentially increase spawn timers based on the direction and size of the force disparity...

    But that would introduce a massive issue on bases where a small number of players can already easily hold off a large force due to excessive choke points...
  7. Tormentos

    I for one don't think that a zerg rush should be rewarded any more than it is already. It is an easy capture and there should be no reward beyond that. I mean you basically compete for kills as an attacker and the defenders have in case of some bases a free for all shooting range until they redeploy and go elsewhere. That is the crux of it.

    Join a zerg with an outfit buddy if you want to farm points, certs or merit or want to do the "Gaining Ground" mission. If you want lots of kills, do something else.

    Continental chat would be beneficial, don't let me stop you in implementing this again. It would be like the Zerg finally getting a Kerrigan or the Tyranids finally getting their synapse connection through their swarmlord. If such a massive force gets controlled, alerts would look different than mere double teaming of one faction. That zerg would crush a hole into the barrier that is the front line and give way to further territories

    I think it is time to further enhance chain of command
    8 players in a squad, 4 squads in a platoon, 4 platoons in a company, led by one Officer in Charge, 128 players united in one chain of command. If consoles get this stuff done with MAG (Massive Action Game) on the PlayStation3 with mere 256 players or 2 times 128 players fighting each other, Planetside 2 should be able to to it as well. One could make it that you have to have to have certain directives finished to lead others, so not everyone could be OiC from the get go.

    Outfits with larger member count could also take benefit of this, no longer limited to platoon sized forces anymore, but to a company size 4 times larger. The OiC would talk to the platoon leaders and they would lead their platoons accordingly. So no more need to redeploy all the time to defend an emergency and Redeployside gets toned down a notch.
    • Up x 1
  8. JibbaJabba

    My suggestion: Simply change the way the capture resources are granted.

    the rough gametheory:
    After attackers have clearly dominated a base the fight should be moving on to the next base. Attackers should be going there and defenders as well. If too many attackers advance (overextension) it gives defenders an advantage at the original base so some balance results.

    But as a whole there should be a battle stretched between bases here.

    But this never happens.
    Instead attackers do what we all see... big armor zerg in a circle pointing inward at an overpopped base. Why?
    Because they are incentivized by a VERY large reward dump.
    They will not advance and instead will stay until "the starting gun fires" which is the dump of certs from the capture.


    Fix this. By some method or another.

    One suggestion: Simply change the way the capture resources are granted. Make it to anyone in a 600-700m radius (for reference 500m is size of a grid square on the map).

    That way you get your reward as attacker or defender if you have moved up the lattice.

    I think this will help at zerged out bases. I think it will promote more of that free flowing inbetween base playstyle.
  9. csvfr

    The main issue I see with the DEFF system is that it can be gamed. Coordinated Zergfits would be able galdrop 48-96 players on uncontested bases and start capturing 1.5-2.0x as fast. Thereby exploiting the system instead of getting a QoL boost from it. In this regard JibbaJabbas proposal of widening the area in which defense/capture rewards are granted is better. This would support combined arms fights happening in-between bases rather than disincentivizing them entirely.

    Second, it would make alerts even easier for the faction with the continental overpop. However this goes against "the greater good" as more than half of the players are on the two underpopulated factions. Ideally the timer bonuses would be scaled according to continental population disparites. This way underpopulated factions don't have to double team as hard just to avoid the DEFF penality, and all players could enjoy the same freedom in picking their fights as they have now.
    • Up x 1