Problems with Attacking/Defending - Solutions & Discussion.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Wrel, Apr 20, 2014.

  1. Wrel Developer

    This video primarily addresses the public or non-organized side of things, as outfits and proper squads are always an exception to the average player's mindset. With that in mind, there's a TL;DW below, but watching the video will state the problems and solutions in much more detail.

    TL;DW: There are a few problems with the interaction between attacking and defending. Fights often devolve into a "take two points and camp the spawn room until the timer runs down," rather than a nice ebb and flow of battle and changing strategies.

    Some better mechanics could make the experience more enjoyable for everyone.

    1. Population imbalance needs to be fixed. Players should be encouraged to reinforce a lower-pop fight by offering large experience bonuses to the underdogs.

    2. Capture times are longer than they need to be, and the process should be streamlined for both attackers and defenders. Standardized capture times, a singular capture point, and rush-style sub-objectives would create the same great fights when populations are evenish, but allow the zerg to move on more quickly, instead of being forced to sit in front of a spawn room.

    3. Lack of spawn points creates one-dimensional and easy-to-end fights. Currently, the entire public spawn system relies on Sunderers and Spawn Rooms. Sunderers are expensive, easy to locate, easy to destroy, and once destroyed can utterly end a fight, forcing a "reset" on any progress made during the encounter. If squads of players are on offense, it's they who have the spawn advantage, able to drop squads of allies on any point in the base by way of galaxy and spawn beacon. Defenders rarely have this same sort of advantage, and can be pummeled by Liberators and Galaxies in small scale fights indefinitely, again, thanks to a lack of spawn options.

    Adding deployable infantry spawn points (Medic deployable) would create much more depth to a base fight. It would decrease the 'reliance' on Sunderers as the primary method of assaulting a base, it would give defenders an option outside of spawn rooms, and it would make fights more involved for either side.

    4. There is currently very little incentive to "fall back a hex" and prep defenses, because we aren't given the tools to do so. Some bases have mannable defense turrets, but that's about it.

    More fortifications, deployables, and sub-objectives (radar dishes reveal enemies until its destroyed, etc.) would create an actual feeling of responsibility for a base's defense.

    At the moment, "defending" a base is as simple as seeing a base being taken on the map, spawning in, and seeing who can wipe the other side before the time limit is reached.

    Those are my thoughts at the moment. Looking forward to some feedback and discussion!
    • Up x 13
  2. NinjaTurtle

    Why do you not work for SOE again?

    You seem to have a greater understanding of the games issues and provide logical ways to fix them. Frankly I think the developers have lost focus on what needs doing.

    Great video btw. Agreed on all points
    • Up x 4
  3. UberBonisseur

    You punish people for equalizing pops by removing the bonus.
    Imagine the character creation said "Equal populations for all factions grants a bonus up to 50% for everyone !", maybe we would have even pops. I like my underpop, it grants me a 50% bonus, why would I want it to go away ?

    2. and 4.
    Spawn rooms have 1-way shields, defenders stay behind the shields and kill people. 1-way shields are the issue. That's why "spawn room warriors" don't fall back. When you look at the standard Spawn room design, it has up to five exits, two windows and a roof. Except some of those exits are plugged to prevent defenders from getting a good firing angle on the outside world. Which makes spawn camping even easier for attackers. Since it's reduced to only a few exits.

    They tried to fix spawn camping by multiplying spawn rooms around the bases (teleporters), but attackers can't shut them down; thus they are reduced to the size of a shack or lead into a small doorway that is ultimately camped. Worse, some spawn rooms lead into chokepoints supposed to "protect" defenders. Maybe if the base had multiple spawn proxies attackers could shut down (not capture like AMP stations)...

    Spawn beacons.

    The over-reliance on Sundies isn't a problem; it's how easy it is to destroy them.
    I can put two AV turrets on the Horizon or grab two friends with a Lancer, the thing dies. I can pull some ESFs and do pizza deliver. I can abuse jump pads with my LA (slingshot maneuver...) and blow it up with the help of a friend.
    Cloak bubbles.... :rolleyes:

    They could remove the Sunderer deployment limit now that we have No-deploy zones. Or at least reduce the radius by a good 50m.

    And please, remote access Turret terminals.
    It pains me to have a functional AA turret in the middle of the base I can't access because a Lib is hovering above my spawn room [IMG]
    • Up x 7
  4. TheFamilyGhost

    There is no statistically significant population imbalance. Even if there was, creating a sustainable population balance would make the game repetitive. Varying population = an ingredient of replayability.

    Yes to the long capture times needing to be shorter. No to single capture points. Multiple capture points create variability in battles; another ingredient of replayability.

    There is a huge number of spawn options. The players do not employ them.

    Organized units will have the advantage. That is the way it should be.

    Defending units have all of the spawn (and spawn attack) options that attackers do. It is not the games fault that players don't employ them.

    Interesting idea! Sure why not, but what precludes these mini-spawns from being placed everywhere to the point of abuse?

    There is huge incentive. That incentive is a desire to not be camped at the next hex. Unfortunately, most players opt for the instant action of being spawn camped.

    Bases having mannable turrets is horrible. Why? It encourages players to fix themselves at the enemy's objective. When the community figures out that it is better to engage the enemy while they are in transit to their objective, then they will begin to fallback when they need to.

    Radar dishes are a cool idea.

    Not true. There was a battle that happened before the enemy got to the base.

    Good stuff. let's see if the dialogue becomes one of players owning their experience, or of players blaming the game for their woes.
  5. MasterCheef

    I find none of this to be true.

    2. Capture times are a fine balance between being defensible, having enough time to take back a base or to hold defenders off for capture. One sided victories may feel drawn out, but thats part of war. The overwhelming force does more cleanup than battle. I still don't find this problem as frequent as people like to complain.

    3. Spawn beacons are good enough. Though i do feel that spawn rooms need to be more defensible.

    4. This isn't true. I've been in many situations where we have to fall back, defend base, deplete enemy armor then go back on the offensive.

    I like the fact that defenders can end an assault by taking out the sundy. It's the only way a smaller force can defend at times.
  6. Wrel Developer

    Bonus experience for both sides for participating in equal fights, that could be worth considering. But the more experience you're handing out, the less valuable experience becomes. As players unlock more, (or have the need to unlock less,) experience becomes a less desirable incentive.

    You saw this with WDS rewards, and you currently see it with Alerts. The "item drop" incentive trumped experience gain, (everyone wanted their free camos,) so they took the easiest route to farming WDS points that they could. (Pre-season 2, before the values were switched around, the most efficient way to farm points [outside of flipping points back and forth] was zerging small-point bases that weren't defensible.)

    As far as alerts go, participation is much less powerful (or even talked about) than it used to be.

    So if you were to implement a "now everyone's a winner!" experience bonus, I wouldn't be surprised if the devs implemented a baseline shift in cert costs.

    I don't believe this. 2 way shields were the cause of more frustration and friendly fire than anything I've seen in the game. Players would play peek-a-boo on both sides instead of just one. Allies would run out, fire off a rocket, run back, get mowed down by defenders.

    Also, you need one-way spawn shields to ward off squad-spawning Sunderers, tanks, Liberators that would otherwise be sitting in plain sight of a spawnroom door. Limiting options does not discourage players from spawn camping, it just further disables those players who don't know any better, but feel too scared to go outside.

    2-way shields did nothing but create a poor experience before, and will do just the same if they were implemented again.

    I view spawn room "flushes" as one way to counter this behavior, but just implementing additional spawn points would be less intrusive and solve the problem indirectly.

    More spawn points means that the fight moves away from the spawn room, which means that spawnroom warriors no longer have anything (or much less) to shoot at, which means that they'll be more inclined to leave the spawn room altogether.

    Overall, spawn rooms and routes out of them definitely could use a revamp. No argument there.

    Again, leads squad-based attackers having more of an advantage over defenders. But we're talking primarily about the public/unorganized/unsquadded players here.

    Slimming up the no-deploy zones and adding cloak bubbles would be good, that should certainly be done no matter how you slice it... but that's also not an argument against medic-deployables.

    Medic deployables create avenues for defenders beyond spawn rooms, which is something that is severely lacking. You can say that spawn rooms need a revamp, and they do, but ultimately, no matter how you design a base, you're not going to find a solution that works for every base 100% of the time. Giving players (especially defenders,) the ability to create spawn options in tactical positions (and within the base's no-deploy zone) will add much more depth to the experience on both sides.

    Agreed. Would love to see that in the game.
    • Up x 1
  7. Tuco

    1. Yay I'm gonna be getting more XP shooting enemies from spawn. Half my XP comes from that anyways, I'm gonna double that. I'm a spawn room hero, got stars in my eyes. Spawn room hero!!! da da dadaddaaaaa.

    2. Shorten the capture timer, then the zerg will go from warpgate to warpgate in shorter time.

    3. A) Squad spawn beacons shouldn't be in the game in the first place and you want to expand it to some sort of medic spawn beacon thing? Infantry should never spawn infantry. Only ground vehicles should spawn infantry. Why? Because ground vehicles are easily spotted and destroyed if they try to drive BEHIND YOUR POSITION AND SETUP SHOP. If infantry spawn infantry then there is no such thing as defensible areas, front line, rear safe areas, battles become random death matches and we just devolved 20 years back to Quake1. Same reason galaxies shouldn't spawn infantry either.
    3. B) What about all that flyover country? The majority of players prefers fights that are between bases, not inside bases. Long range battle rifle shootouts, hitting tanks with AV weapons, long range tank battles, dogfights, places C4 fairies can't get your tank so easily. You're focused on bases. Bases bases bases bases bases bases bases bases, as if nothing else exists. I've been playing bases since 1996. Screw bases.
    3. C) Liberators do not just hover over the spawn, they can pretty much see every damn thing within 2 SOI radiuses without even trying. They'll destroy anyone spawning at a squad beacon just as easily as destroy anyone spawning inside the base. A "medic squad beacon" won't help.
    3. D) PS1 AMS

    4. PS1 mines, PS1 spitfires, PS1 motion detectors.
  8. WyrdHarper

    While I agree with a lot of your points, I can't get behind shorter capture timers. If anything we need more points and longer timers, as the sort timers make defending much more difficult and unvaried. Defenders are basically only given the choice to redeploy and charge out of the spawn room, instead of bringing in armor, air, sunderers, galaxies, etc. because there simply isn't time.

    Not to be mean, but battles are defined by leaders, not the solo players hopping from fight to fight. Longer times to capture means defenders can set up a better fight (which is more fun for everyone) instead of platoons abandoning a fight because there's no time to bring in the heavy stuff to break up the enemy entrenchment, leaving the independent players massively outpopped.

    The pace in general is simply way too fast--a year into the game, leaders are very efficient at taking bases and killing sunderers, which means most base fights are over very quickly. A solo player's fun is still at the whim of leaders, even if they never join a platoon, and outside of one you see fights either completely won or lost in a couple of minutes, which leads to player burnout and diminishes the amount of impact you feel like you 're making.
    • Up x 2
  9. Tuco

    "Spawn room warriors don't fall back" because

    A) There's nothing "back" there to shoot at.

    B) There's 2 liberators and a magrider camping "back" there as well.

    Any more awesome ideas guys?

    Then it becomes like WWIIONLINE where it's impossible to cap a base if the populations are even. It requires on average 3 times as many attackers than defenders. Another bad idea.
  10. Tuco

    ....Except 90% of battles.

    Why? Cause some neckbeard created a website, and herded cats, they should have an advantage over everyone else?
  11. Elrobochanco

    I agree in all the intent, that it should be easier and more rewarding for non squaded up players to get and have good fights. A lot of the points in this are somewhat exploitable. When I watched it all I thought was wow with these systems an organized outfit would just **** on the fun of public players.

    Plenty of great ideas if they only apply to public players, but when you flip it around to public players "can" do this, and outfitts "will use every facet of this" it gets ugly.

    We already do fallback to defend, having the ability to seed a base with more spawns and incentivize less attackers to come there would just make a bigger meatgrinder for those players. And while lower pop XP is a good idea, with the normalized/shorter cap idea it means that outfits that can smash and grab a base would just be rolling in XP in all bases rather than just being able to do it in a biolab right now.

    Most public players already do not understand how something like a generator/SCU works in terms of affecting capture, and needing to prime a facility just makes it more likely to be capped by an organized group very quickly, but not any faster by people who just go where the mission system points them.

    The spawn options doesn't need more things to place (public players will never do this), it just needs a more general way to get to a base. We need the HART system for both sides. If your faction owns a base or has any foothold there (say greater than 5 people) then you can drop there outside the SOI (no deploy zone).

    And yeah I want my spitfires but those are never coming back.
    • Up x 1
  12. Tuco

    It's no fun for outfits either.

    In fact it's even more boring to be part of the zerg than be the zerged. I stopped joining platoons and started farming zergs with AT mines and claymores. It's kinda fun. I especially like the BOOM-cha-ching sound effects.
  13. ChampagneDragon

    • Up x 3
  14. Tuco

    .....the attackers have to fight their way to the cap point.

    You "redesign bases" guys won't be happy until defenders have 20 tunnels going out and surrounding the cap point, where each tunnel exit has a 1-way shield the defender can shoot out at anyone approaching the cap point.
  15. Crashsplash

    omg, they are gone in the blink of an eye as it is. And if you fall back you don't often have enough time to prepare your defence before your enemy arrives.

    So, no.

    Half the reason the fights don't mean much is that they end too quickly.
    • Up x 4
  16. GhostAvatar

    Population balance for the most part doesn't exist. That is the beauty of the three faction system. Until one faction exceeds 50% population on a server (which is rare nowadays), there is no dominating faction. As the combined forces of the other two factions can exceed their own. What does exist is the lack of incentive to balance populations in a local fight or to push certain factions on a continent. With the current system I can get a population bonus regardless of fighting against faction X that has higher population or faction Y that has a lower population than me on a continent. More often than not, most player go for the lower populated faction as they get both the pop advantage in the fight and the XP boost. Or the lowest populated faction will just zerg the next populated faction, in a base that is defended by a smaller force from one of the bigger factions.

    Bonus XP needs to be based around two things. Firstly continent population bonus needs to be based on the population disparity between your faction and the faction you're are targeting. This will incentivise the lower two populated factions to push the higher populated faction instead of fighting themselves. Secondly, there needs to be a local population bonus based on the local fight. This needs to be based on the average population balance of the hex you are fighting in and the adjoining hex via lattice link. This will encourage players to join those fights where they would be outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1, then stay once the number balance out because it becomes a generally good fight.

    Why are we trying to incentivise zerging by allowing them to move on quickly? Especially against attack zero or little defended bases? Boredom is one thing that can break up a zerg nicely, as players move on to find more interesting fights. Thats all I got to say on that idea. The idea might be a good one. But I feel the reasoning is especially flawed here, as it based around incentivising the zerg mentality of easy pushes.

    I was actually thinking about this the other days. But more from a defensible position aspect. Take Tech Plant fights for example. The standard attack tactic is to take the balcony above the A point, then take the A point and defend it from the balcony. This is because the balcony is a very defensible position and easy to hold off attackers, all the while providing good coverage of the objective and all the routes to said objective. Alternatively, outside the Tech Plant itself, there is very few defensible position to place spawn options that you can attack from. This results in spawn options being easily overrun and destroyed and ending the fight for the most part, until the balcony is cleared.

    This kind of base design needs to be reversed. The attackers need easy to defend place on the edge of the base to set up spawn points and push from. While the objectives need less defensible points overlooking the objectives or on the objective. This allows a more organic longer lasting fight over the actually objective. While trying to push the opposite forces spawn options becomes harder the closer you push towards it.

    Honestly, I have never thought about this that much. The issue here is the mindset of the players that become spawn room warriors. Personally when I know a base is lost, I pull back and start setting up defenses like tank mine traps etc. Or to flank the enemy while it is still attacking the previous base and relieve some pressure on that fight. Knowing that in doing so I weaken the force before it move to the next base.

    I think this is more a perceived playstyle of the game, due to the lack of meta and any kind of real overall tactical game play or value of holding a base. Some see the game as just a giant TDM and don't care about bases or the objectives. This really comes down to the grand design of the game and how owning or losing bases have no real meaning or value to the players. Not that we don't have the tools to do so, just that players choice not to utilise the tools.
    • Up x 3
  17. OldMaster80

    1) Been telling this for ages: XP must be dynamically adjusted according to territory population. 75% attackers steamrolling 25 of enemies should get very little XP, while outnumbered forces should get a significant bonus. XP bonus must be assigned according to population of every single territory, not according to global population.

    2) Imho capture times are ok. If they get too short then defenders will have no time to resecure a base that's under siege. Defenders must have a little time to gather and plan something.

    3) Concerning Sunderers: people must learn that they cannot deploy a sunderer and forget it, it must be hidden and defended. You can't just park it right behind the corner and then blame the game when it gets destroyed. A small concern is about Liberators that have an easy time and finding and burning to ashes sunderers, I see very little defence in this case. Engineers should have a deployable to create the famous "Cloaking bubble" to prevent Sundies to be spotted easily.
    Regarding the deployable stuff Medics can revive themselves, as long as they're alive. They are the respawn option themeselves. The problem is in many bases spawn rooms are still designed very bad and it's easy being camped while it's very hard to get out.

    4) Imho the game gives everything we need. The point is squad leaders must face the brutal reality that some bases are less defensible than others: Red Ridge Communication is not Allatum Biolab. Knowing the territory and where to establish a defensive perimeter is key to success, while I believe mannable turrets offer little advantage: they're too quick to destroy and too slow to repair, while Engineers repairing are still an easy target for tank and liberator's shells. Even the 1st noob in the game understands quick the 1st thing to do to live longer is taking down those turrets. And usually once they're destroyed they'll remain a pile of smoking garbage until the fight is over.
    Engineers deployables like barriers,shields and barricades could help A LOT.
    The biggest issue then for me remains the spawn room balcony: it's supposed to be the place from where defenders can clean the area and start a resecure action, instead is a deadly trap. It's not possible to take cover effectively, it's exposed to tank shells, does not provide cover from aircraft. No suprpire people fights from behind the shiled, that's much easier and effective.
    • Up x 1
  18. OldMaster80

    Stalker Cloaking + Spawn Beacon: how to change the tide of a battle.
  19. ChampagneDragon

    And we all know there's never a base behind you where you could spawn and get a spawn beacon behind the enemy. Never.
  20. z1967

    Base defense is one half defenders and one half base design. Bases should have obvious places to put AI and AV MANA turrets whilst also forcing sunderers to go through potential minefields to get to good locations to deploy. Bases should also be designed with multiple spawn rooms and those spawn rooms should be scattered around the base with a "main" spawn room in the center. The point should never be too far away from the spawnroom so that attackers get an advantage, but never too close so that defenders can cover it from their spawnroom.

    On the subject of deployables, there are two QOL things that I would like with mines turrets
    a) tell me when my mine has been set off
    b) tell my where/how far away my mine is.

    That way I can not only cover my flanks, but also know that there might be an enemy in that area. I would also like the ability to place more mines (maybe 10 AI mines and 15 AV mines?) but keep the carrying capacity the same.

    Auto turrets (spitfires) have been talked to death over in the engineer sub forum. My personal view is that they should be weak (about 1000 health, same as a player), have a long TTK (>1 sec), and you should have the ability to place many of them (around 5-10). They will have a small deploy radius (5m-10m) and are mainly to be used for area denial.