Can I pay someone to attack my base? ....and other issues plaguing the new construction system

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by DeadAlive99, May 31, 2016.

  1. DeadAlive99

    So...... one of the fears some of us had prior to the Construction patch is unfortunately coming true: Is there enough population to sustain two separate battle channels?

    The answer seems to be, "No".

    Additionally, there are numerous other issues plaguing the construction system, that, left unaddressed, may threaten the future of the game.

    Before I get into the details, let me acknowledge that this is a brand new system and we all know it's a work in progress, and will hopefully see many years of additions.

    We all want this game to succeed, so now is the time to hash out all of the issues and make good decisions.

    Let me give an example pattern that I've experienced numerous times. This is not every time, but way too frequent:

    * I build a giant base with every construction object, and all allowed multiples (i.e., 3 walls, 3 repair modules, etc.). I wait. I wait some more. I wait longer. I wait forever. No one attacks. I get bored and leave the base behind and go play lattice. Sometimes the base lasts for over an hour like that, all by itself.

    * I build a medium sized base, thinking that I might get someone to attack an easier base. I wait, wait some more, wait longer, ...... I get bored, leave, play lattice, sometimes the base lasts for over an hour completely abandoned.

    * I build a small base. Same routine. Same result.

    * I build a bare base, or 'Naked HIVE', with just a HIVE and SILO. Same routine. Same result.

    I love the construction concept, but you know something is wrong when I practically have to advertise my 'naked abandoned base' in chat to get someone to come and attack.

    Again, this is not every time, just way too often. I have had some truly awesome custom base experiences....but too few and far between.

    The problem is, this should not be happening, AT ALL. EVER. The fact that it is, and happening a lot, means that something is seriously wrong.

    Unfortunately there are numerous causes for this, as outlined in countless threads now by many players, as well as other serious issues with the system.

    Let's list some of them off: (No doubt I will forget some, so please post whatever I've missed)

    * Cortium spawning too sparsely, making it very rare over some large areas, and other large areas containing a single 2K spire.

    * ANT role is too tedious, and has a very low XP payoff compared to other roles

    * ANT radar and tank cert lines that are maxed out give an extreme advantage over entry level players, and players who don't have the time or money to cert them up. This can feedback to point #1, making the spawning seem too sparse.

    * Players who want to build HIVEs are prevented from doing so when other factions are sitting on stashes of inactive cores, otherwise known as the "unintentional inactive core hoarding problem" ((There is apparently a mechanic change in the works on PTS for this....details unknown at this point.))

    * Super large, uncustomized 'no deploy' zones, especially around grouped bases, make picking spots unduly difficult and unfun, and virtually eliminates cohesive strategic play between custom bases and lattice players.

    * Bases that can be virtually impossible to take down. This is a debatable subject, with many possible ways for tweaking to allow more assault methods but still giving defenders a defensible base.

    * Zero cohesion between custom bases and lattice play. The only connecting factor at this point is the VP system which leads to a continent lock. Unfortunately, lattice play is still by and large the superior way to gain points, and it comes with the full variety the game has had up until Construction. IOW, it is always fun.

    * The UI is lacking upwards of 30-40 bits of data to guide new and veteran players alike around the system and keep people informed about what is going on, where, what is needed, where Not to go (i.e., show locked SILOs so one doesn't waste time traveling there), etc.

    * Due to the minor affect on VP, too many players dedicating time to a HIVE base, especially a low yield base, could cause severe damage to the lattice play for their faction, allowing the enemy a lattice advantage where the real points are scored.

    For example, compare 1-3 players working a 15-27% HIVE base, vs. capping countless regions, and in turn supporting the rest of the faction working other regions, all leading to significant VP gains, not to mention being able to surround HIVE bases by capping the surrounding territory. At this point, one might make the argument that the only valuable HIVE base when compared to lattice capping, is a 100%'er, or multiple 75%+, and again, to build and hold a 100%'er, is going to take a lot of player resources away from lattice.

    Additionally, a defending faction could even choose to ignore a 100%'er and focus heavily on the lattice instead, due to the enormous work required to take down the base. (chime in here and let us know your experience with 100%'ers and how this gameplay tends to go and how it balances out)

    * Determining HIVE efficiency prior to placement is essentially impossible, and the mechanic can be easily overlooked or misunderstood by new and old players alike. In practice, it's a gamble as to what you're going to get. Planting a HIVE only to discover after it goes online that your HIVE is the 'runt of the litter' (i.e., a 15%'er), is quite a downer, i.e., 'not fun', but by then, you've already built out a full base, and put all that time and effort into it....what are you going to do?

    The enemy can see your HIVE efficiency as well, and this may be a reason why many HIVEs are not attacked, because the payoff does not justify the effort to attack them. Low yield HIVEs are not a threat to the enemy, and they may have their own anyway. You can spend 20 minutes trying to take down a 15% HIVE, or you can cap 5 bases and cutoff enemy forward progress, and hold onto large base benefits.

    Also, the lattice link system can leave a sour taste in one's mouth, when your HIVE is at 15%, and a teammate's HIVE, just 500m away, is at 51%, literally in the same basic area, e.g., the middle of the map. It feels unfair, and can feel like a bug.

    When you put serious effort into something, you expect a proportional payoff, or at least a ton of fun. The lattice link system feels too much like gambling, and 'winning' a 15%'er is no more fun than winning a free spin on a slot machine.

    Before I finish, let me reiterate the fact that this is all brand new and still in development, so no one expects miracles overnight.

    In conclusion, the construction system at this point plays like a sandbox novelty, understandably lacking polish, but fraught with some serious issues.

    Its' affect on VP is minor. The action one can find at the bases is far more miss, than hit. Abandoned bases and half filled loner SILOs abound. One is guaranteed to lose out on large amounts of XP by participating in the system. Attacking large bases can require half a faction, while even tiny bases can sit around unguarded indefinitely.

    There's a lot of frustration with the system. There's lack of communication from the UI. There's no overriding strategy or urgency; there's no, "You need to build a HIVE over here and fast because......". No, it's not only unnecessary, but it can actually cost your faction territory as players spend time on a HIVE base when they are desperately needed to hold onto lattice bases.

    It kind of feels like a 'mini game' within the larger game, and it is not meshing well. It needs a lot of tuning, but it also needs to be synced with lattice play, such that it is actually a required component of lattice play.

    The simplest, and possibly the best suggestion I've seen for this is to eliminate much of the smaller bases and let players build custom bases in their place. This could be a total sandbox advance, or, it could be combined with some structure, such as leaving the bare CP and terminals at the bases and allowing a custom base to be built around the old CP.

    One final thing: Many of the problems listed have a high probability of driving players away from the system, and possibly the whole game, if construction is the reason why they came here. New code will take the time that it takes, but the 'turn off' factor should not be underestimated here.

    Please post your opinions and suggestions, and don't forget to upvote and pass the link around to friends. This is Reddit, and stuff disappears into the void very fast.

    Here is the Reddit sister thread. The Devs hang out, here so consider commenting there and upvoting:
  2. MasterOhh

    Many outfits (including the one I'm in) chose to ignore the construction system entirely. We are mostly looking for good fights, which you can't have with player build bases, neither as defender nor as attacker.
  3. breeje

    There is no profit in attacking basses
    My outfit destroys them only if they are a pain in the azz
    Maybe you should build your base in an better place, a place that can't be ignored
    • Up x 1
  4. Kristan

    Build your base on the road between the bases or close to it to cause enough nuisance to the enemy so they won't just ignore it.
    • Up x 1
  5. Eternaloptimist

    I didn't read all of your thread, too long for me, but I focused on this point about bases not getting attacked. For me as a potential attacker the answer is simple - where's the profit? Thye are hard to destroy, auto turrets are a curse and I get no xp or anything else for blowing one away. I don't bother unless I cannot get around one.

    Blowing a HIVE so that it becomes a VP generator for my faction is the only (minor) advantage I can think of.
  6. Pfundi

    I dont think you can pay me enough to keep running in those boring death traps with no reward and a chain of auto turrets instantly killing me without you even trying to defend. I mean I die even when I win...
  7. FateJH

    As stated above, no one is obligated to attack player bases or pursue HIVEs. You seem to view player base construction as a lure that must be bitten; but, that is not a correct assessment; and, rather than consider that your assessment of the system might be incorrect, you believe that the system is wrong. Do not mistake that the choice to attack your masterwork base, whether it is a joke or a feint or a threat, is entirely on the enemy's shoulders and they do not have to pursue your means to an end. Even after the changes to the system DBG is proposing, that is not going to change.

    Construction is a tool in pursuit of a goal, not the goal itself. Do not mistake the goal of the game with having fun. Having fun is something you do bound by the rules of the game. Winning, correlated as the goal, does not pigeonhole the methods used to achieved that success, also bound by the rules of the game. The two, though they do have to meet somewhere or at least not block each other on all important routes, are necessarily separated things.
    • Up x 1
  8. Eternaloptimist


    20% XP bonus for kills and destroying vehicles when figthing near constructed bases (PC patch today) - looks like you might get your wish OP
  9. Jake the Dog

    What I'd like is for the victory gen kill to actually be worth the 20 or so P2 120AP rounds to kill, I realize its appealling to have my name plastered all over saying that I did something (yay!) but I'd kinda like to be rewarded for methodically eradicating some dudes base with nothing but a prowler and an ammo sundy...
  10. Khrin

    the TL;DR of your huge post is "I want to build a megafortres then sit and farm people when they come to attack it" and the TL;DR of reality is "this tedious slug-fest is why people can't be bothered with construction".
  11. StupidPlayer001

    A possible "lure" to attacking would be to have a HIVE reach a certain % and a lattice connect to the base...just a quick thought. I personally have asked time and again, what's the point of building anything in this game when some hot-shot pilot comes along just to kill you while you're driving around looking to mine?
  12. Gundem

    Sorry but...


    I promise I'll read it later!
  13. vitanidb

    People always respond to 100% efficiency HIVES though.
  14. Demigan

    I think the best solution to consolidate the construction system is not to remove small fortresses, but to severely reduce the amount of cover they have and then allow players to build at some locations.

    So we take some random small base, remove most of it's walls and defensive structures. We keep most of the ground and some of the structures, but the point is completely open and vehicles can drive right on top.
    However, we also increase the distances. So buildings are spaced farther apart, the spawn bunker is set even farther from the point and there is far more open space to traverse for both attackers and defenders.
    As best addition: AI modules cannot be build near small fortresses. AI modules seem to be introduced purely to man turrets when there aren't a lot of players, which is a good addition for fortresses build in the middle of nowhere especially without spawns, but since we are talking about a small base that people are bound to try and protect the use of AI modules would only serve to unbalance the fight.

    Now players can start building walls to keep hostiles out. They can build shields to protect themselves against aircraft, they can build turrets to fire at enemies etc. However since the base is far more spread out you can't easily protect all sides and are more easily attacked, and the attackers might be using their own constructions to creep up on the enemy.
  15. DeadAlive99

    Actually, the TL;DR as I would write it is, "DBG added a major makeover to the gameplay which is largely failing due to it not being a necessary component to the win condition, combined with the fact that as a rule of thumb, it is UNfun to work with".
  16. DeadAlive99

    It is a lure that should be bitten. That's the point of shooters, and these custom bases are not designed to merely 'look pretty', but to pack heavy firepower and defend the HIVE. So, yes, I believe the current design is faulty.....because this is a shooter, and not The Sims. Btw, the system has changed a bit with the new favor of my views, I might add. :)

    While these new changes will not force anyone to attack HIVEs more, it will add some additional incentive and reward, and sometimes big meta changes can spawn from small game changes. It's not an exact science, and can't always be predicted with total accuracy.

    Lattice bases are captured in pursuit of a goal as well, and the mechanics of the game are used to cap these bases. Both aspects lead to VP gain, which lead to a win. Technically, lattice could be completely ignored while everyone gen'd VP solely from HIVEs, so you could say that lattice is just a tool and not a necessary one as well. But presently, the fun is almost entirely with lattice.

    You are making a case for what I call a 'mini game' inside of a shooter that is normally designed for players to attack everything in sight. If you like that concept, that's your prerogative, but again, this is a shooter, and defending a MAJOR aspect of the gameplay in a shooter that by design is both completely unnecessary and unappealing much of the time, is most certainly a conflict of interest in shooter terms, and is absolutely not the way it is being advertised.

    It is being advertised the same as every other shooter advertisement: An action packed experience. But that is not what we've seen thus far.

    Furthermore, your attempt to separate fun from the objective of the game, and in turn the gameplay itself, which is needed to achieve the objective, is......strange. Sorry, but I cannot agree with your assessment, other than where you acknowledge the current meta.
  17. Niamar

    Build your base where the enemy has to come through it to get to the next lattice base.

    I have built a few bases, sometimes just to reinforce a defensive position at the front line of a battle, it always gets destroyed.

    I do not get enough experience, certs or kills for building, defending or attacking a player made base to be worth my time. I avoid others bases and stick to the lattice game. Those civ/sim players may love building, attacking or defending something meaningless, I will leave it to them.
  18. DeadAlive99

  19. FateJH

    Your design willing, there is both heavy firepower and strong HIVE defense. What you can't build are attackers.
    The horse bound for the river-side still choose to not drink.
    If that is your assessment of my opinions, then the subject of the initial complaint - Alerts - are no less a minigame in the grand scheme of the whole than the construction system. The lattice is also not "the game," or a minigame, but merely a regulatory system for territory access. Base building is a sidestepping system designed to ignore the limitations of the Lattice without encroaching on the wilderness it maintains. (I suggest construction is a demonstration of the developers having taken consideration of both the people who were opposed to the dominance of Beta Crown and the people who favored the gameplay of Beta Crown, and those who wanted to proliferate it across the continents.)
    It is not an attempt. There is already a distinction in players between playing the game for fun in all the colorful senses of the term and playing the game for victory in every mechanical sense of the term. And vice-versa.
    Is that not what your original complaint was about? People who, of their own accord, built bases or pulled away to protect HIVES (their fun/victory) and did not contribute to lane pushes (your victory/fun)? or people who did not push player-made bases (your fun) even though the base threatened to generate victory, but only kept to the territorial grind (their victory)? It feels like there is a sudden disconnect in the topic.
    • Up x 1
  20. DeadAlive99

    No, but you can attract them. I'm not sure what you're larger point is here. We are all attracted to games that suit us, that are fun to play. It's attraction based. Why should the construction system be any different?

    My OP was not about Alerts, ftr. But technically speaking, yes, alerts would qualify as a mini-game. The difference there is, it blends perfectly with the game already being played. You don't have to do anything different except perhaps, 'try harder', although the additional certs you earn from the denser battles far outweighs the paltry reward you get if you win the alert.

    As far as what the ultimate intention of the Devs is with construction, I'm sure they're aiming for some type of balance between sandboxing and integration with lattice. It has just been changed and will continue to change, I'm sure, and the direction is clearly in favor of making it more attractive.

    You're suggesting that players playing to win are not having fun, or intending to have fun? This makes no sense. Or perhaps that is your bias, that playing for victory and 'stats' cannot possibly be fun.

    There are many ways to have fun in the game. You can have fun by going full bore for rapid victory, as well as farming, or just bouncing around, and not everyone will enjoy all three of those. Locking a continent takes so long, so much effort, and no payoff that excites me, that I don't give it any thought at all except perhaps when it's down to the last VP, and then there's some urgency to it.

    You're over complicating it. There's a time to wax philosophical but this is not one of them. There is no disconnect. What I did was compile a list of complaints across countless players regarding the new system, the end result of which is an unexpected lack of participation and strange meta.

    If the Devs actually desired a disjointed mish mash of meta weirdness and abandoned bases, then they should have advertised it with those caveats. That would be a bizarre way to reboot the game, though, and I personally consider this a reboot.