Bases with Welcome Mats

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by H4YW1R3, Sep 9, 2015.

  1. H4YW1R3

    • We are testing out a different capture mechanic at the Crown and Crossroads Watchtower on Indar. When an attacking faction captures all three points the SCU shield will drop, leaving the SCU vulnerable; If the defenders re-secure any of the points the SCU shields will reactivate.
    Seriously? SCU's becoming vulnerable with capped points?

    Bases are supposed to be designed for defense. Yet the "geniuses" at DB/SOE continue to modify them to favor the attackers. It's bad enough we don't get any XP rewards for successful defense unless we happen to score a ribbon. Now base design by DB is turning to favor the attacking faction who get XP rewards for the cap. Why bother defending any more? Why not just hand bases back and forth?

    I loved the Crown at launch. It was a meatgrinder. A real Hamburger Hill. Then SOE "tweaks" it to be way too easy for the enemy to hold 2 of the 3 points and win. Same goes with Crossroads. And now the attackers are going to be rewarded when they zerg that last point and hold it for a minute. That's just some real, grade A bu11$hit right there.

    This game is going downhill fast. Seriously. Bases are supposed to support the defenders. That's the only perk of being on the defending side. What morons come up with the ideas for these changes? And what morons in charge OK's them? Where do I apply for that job? Because I can think up some real stupid **** too that'd probably run the game into the ground and would love to get paid for it.
    • Up x 3
  2. Jubikus

    They only said test they didnt say it was going to be in the game they will need to see how it works they need something to encourage attacks on the crown and crossroads as do to their difficulty to take since holding 3 points is extremely difficult leaves the fight to drag out way too long making it a waste of time to try and grab for an alert as your time is better spent elsewhere. Making the base have a vulnerability like this is likely to try and encourage fast organized strikes in order to take it. The current idea will likely not be the exact version we get in the game as the shield dropping immediately is probably too soon but its a starting place for testing then they can increase the time bit by bit afterwords till they find a good place.
  3. H4YW1R3

    There are more than enough easy mode bases that favor the attackers as it is. But there are a few, thankfully, bases still left that can be defended. That's a good thing in my opinion. Those bases remain some of the few points where an outnumbered group of defenders can hold or finally break the spawn camping zergs that have become all too common in P2 due to all the changes made by DB/SOE that funnel everyone into these zerg by lattices and continent locks that narrow choices.

    The fact that they're even considering to "try" this makes me cringe and suggests this mechanic may also be considered at other bases on other continents.
  4. HadesR

    Next thing will be moving the SCU outside the Tower because the defenders can defend it if it's inside ...
    • Up x 2
  5. FieldMarshall

    I dont see any problems with adding the new SCU mechanic.
    These lame *** back and forth stalemate bases can be quickly SCU dropped by small coordinated teams if there are no defenders.

    Bases like crossroads will still be defendable by 40% even with the SCU shields down, unless you are getting spawnroom camped.
    If you are getting spawnroom camped, there is no reason why the fight should drag on anyway.

    TLDR: Unless spawnroom camped, the SCU wont go down anyway.
  6. Jubikus

    Many of the hard to take bases are amp stations bio labs and tech plants as it should be thees bases have meaning and are fought for because of this however the bases here in question are simply another base to get territory for an alert and because of this they are largly ignored. An ideal situation wouldnt need anythign like this because the playerbase would attack theese bases anyways but do to their low value thay are ignored so the solution they are trying is to simply make them easier to take.
    Personally i actually like them as the hard to take bases and prefer a larger fight to be scattered about points that are away from each other but i can still understand why tehy are trying to change it because thees bases are largly ignored zones the crown more than crossroads that base still sees some battles.
  7. Lemposs

    Hold on, too easy to take the Crown or Crossroads, by taking and holding two points? I want to know which server and time that happens, because that seems like a complete miracle in my book.
    Those two and Regent Rock Garrison, are bases that you somewhat easily take two points, and the defender has 20 minutes to ever get one of them back, strangely enough those bases are some of the biggest choke points in the game (and people will stay there for hours, doing nothing but killing and dying).

    I think it is nice that they are actually addressing those bases, because they are god awful, and attracts too many people to a slaughterhouse of no end.
    • Up x 2
  8. gunnner10

    I agree Lemposs, the game would be more dynamic if some bases are easier to cap. currently we end up with stalemate battlefronts between certain bases. I also get frustrated when attacking a base, to have a platoon of enemies crush our forward progress, then redeploy elsewhere instead of pushing back on us. I think this change could cause battles to occur in more places more often
  9. HadesR

    Bit off topic and would maybe be an interesting thread in itself but maybe people are enjoying those kind of fights ?

    Maybe in a game based on killing and shooting people they enjoy killing and shooting ?

    I mean I hate Biolabs and will avoid them whenever possible, but some people enjoy them..
    So if they want to stay there for hours enjoying themselves then why not ?
    • Up x 1
  10. HappyStuffin

    Hahaha! I love this. It pretty much sums up what I think about every other decision that DBG makes.
  11. Lemposs

    Problem is the game really isn't modeled around being just killing and shooting (there are games that do that far better). One of the main concepts is the taking and defending of bases and territory (granted one of the aspects of holding bases was removed). This aspect, is also part of Planetside 2's longevity, you can log in and you will be meet with new situations that will keep the game entertaining. The problem occurs, when one of the continents (which tends to have the most population), is focusing a lot of the population around three or four bases/fronts, and those never really move. The game will likely become tedious, and people will likely quit. What this test is about, is trying to make those three or four bases easier to take, so that more of the map becomes used, and people will get more entertainment from the change of scenery and will still get their killing kick satisfied (and I do doubt that people would quit over their usual hot spot bases not being there anymore).
    I log in every day and every day, Indar has the same three to four bases being fought over, and it is across all servers. All the other continents has far more change on a daily basis, than Indar, and I think it is quite telling of Indars overall design.

    Now, of course this isn't so much a problem for the people that just enjoy the shooting and killing, but I think for a lot of us that enjoy the tactical aspect of Planetside 2, Indar is a nightmare. And I do think that those who just enjoy the shooting and killing, wouldn't complain about a change of scenery, whereas those of us that do enjoy more than that, find it highly problematic.

    I think right now it is a win/lose situation, when it likely could be a win/win situation if a graceful change is done.
  12. HadesR

    But wont it only make it easier in situations that is was easier in the firstplace. By zerging ( overwhelming numbers zerging ) or by Ghostcapping ..?

    Its not Imo going to be easier to take in nearly balanced fights, as the SCU is in a very defensible spot.
    So all its really going to do is make it easier ( not quicker ) in unbalanced fights.

    Just seems a weird change, and the " easier " could have been achieved in others ways ( such as a lower cap time ) but without the chance to kill a fight before it began.
  13. ModsFreeAreForTV

    The people who decide these things are the people playing the game. DBG is just like every other major company, they appeal to the biggest wallet which usually is the brain dead people who play planetside. Most people (and I'm guilty of it too) just run and gun with no team work so they focus on this single player type mentality for an MMO which in turn makes this.

    What you need to realize is daybreak and EVERY OTHER gaming company isn't here to appeal to the hardcore fanbase, they're here to appeal to the masses and appeal to the fat wallets. So until this games inevitable close, which is a shame cause it's a great idea (I said IDEA not game), you'll continue to see this.
  14. Lemposs

    Well problem with those bases is that, even with those overwhelming numbers, you could often still hold one of the points, so you would still have tons of time to set up either a counter push or redeploy. Of course the risk of ghost capping is there, but that is true for most of the game.
    As for the aspect of a balanced fight, it gives the tactic to go for the points and then a quick push for the SCU, and not just play the wait for reinforcement to come and **** us game. It isn't perfect, but it sure beats having to go for all three points, and hold them for 6 minutes.
    Well, they are testing it, to see if it becomes too easy or if any problems occur with it, but I think the most important part is that they at least are addressing the problem.
  15. customer548

    Zergs are sadly the core of the game atm.
    The Crown and Crossroads Watchtower are the only Indar bases where people can built a defense in order to try to break ennemy zergs.
    Those changes seem to make zergs easier than they already are. I don't really think that PS2 needs it.

    The Crown and Crossroads Watchtower may seem to be an endless butchery. But large battles are fun sometimes. I think noobs can have fun in those aeras, they can farm their Certs or just move to another location. Endless battles are more fun than jumping from bases to bases with 1000 zerging teammates, giving 0 chance to the defenders.
  16. Kcalehc

    I like it. Instead of the defenders having to show up in under 5.5 minutes to counter push, they would now have only about 2, before they cannot spawn in directly. Right now, you can take all 3 points, get the cap timer going, and the defending empire can take a fair amount of time before they must react, then they just take one point to start, making the timer go up like 10 mins, then they have much more time to counter push to a second point.

    However, I don't think it would be appropriate for all bases; just those 3 pointers that are currently often bottlenecks that get bogged down too easily, and allow too long for the defending empire to react (Crown, Indar Ex, Regent Rock, Crossroads to name a few).

    It still does not stop a defending force from Gal dropping in, re-securing one point, repairing the SCU and then continuing to counter push. In fact it makes this a more likely defense strategy - and I'm all for promoting and rewarding organization and teamwork.

    The zerg is going to roll over enemies anyways, it won't change that. If you can only cap 2 points at a base, it won't change that either, it'll still be a drawn out slug fest. The only time it will make a difference, is when attackers move in quickly and get to all three points before defenders can react - and then they've still 2 minutes. Even then, its probably all over anyways; unless organized defenders react quickly - which they already do anyways.

    The only real change to the flow I see, is that it'll force an empire with one of these bases to proactively defend it, instead of waiting till they have to, then reactively redeployside defending it.
  17. Movoza

    On the other hand, if they can take and hold the SCU in the tower, as well as all the points.... Then the base is basically overrun. Of course there are exceptions, but I think this is a good idea. It will prevent spawncamping and the defenders will have to start pulling spawn solutions from other bases. This is generally more effective than spawnroom warriors in my book.

    One of the greatest weaknesses of the defenders is predictability. The attackers know where to put up choke points, as the defenders will nearly always spawn at one point and use the same attack routes. The attackers however can put down many Sunderers around the base, varying their attack angles much more, increasing tactical use. When a base is being overrun, your best mode of attack is attacking them from behind. Their forces and more importantly their spawn locations are often spread out and can be taken down, as well as their tanks. This means you can easier whittle down their power instead of just going straight out of the spawn room into their best defended and fortified positions.
    Defenders will learn to anticipate the disaster of losing an SCU, and put down more spawn points in advance. This increases their tactical power both during and after the base is overrun, reducing the power of the zerg.
  18. Crayv

    Most of the bases in the game would become nearly impossible to take if the attackers could only spawn at the spawn rooms of a base while the defenders had sundies around it. As most bases are a point that is close to a sundy shack with the defenders having to go through a choke point to simply get to said point (and usually have to run further to get there).
  19. ModsFreeAreForTV

    This is sadly what people want. A long, overdrawn battle that acts like 180 vs. 180... It's not only boring but it's impractical to the game. I don't want to fight for 4 hours over ONE point cause then there will almost never be victors of a continent. If you wanted to make a long drawn MMO shooter then some type of War system needs to be implemented where after X amount of days whoever has highest kills or most bases capped is the winner of the war. This though, would get stale really fast.
  20. Liewec123

    yuck! i remember epic old crown, its already been ruined by being made easy, now they're going to make it even easier?!
    what are they smoking! i fully agree with you that bases should benefit the defenders,
    its frustrating that some bases greatly favour the attackers.