[Suggestion] Variable base cap XP - Prevent double teaming

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by adamts01, Oct 7, 2018.

  1. adamts01

    You get more XP for capping a base from a faction which holds more territory. And less XP for capping a base from a faction which holds less territory.
    • Up x 2
  2. LordKrelas

    This doesn't actually prevent double-teaming.
    The side with the most territory, is the alert faction, or one particular faction; Whom is then the most valuable target.
    This means, they are encouraged to be double-teamed by the other two, until they have less land or the alert ends.
    The Faction that pulls ahead, is then getting diminishing returns on expansion while both sides are encouraged to attack them for increased EXP, until said faction is reduced to equal or less territory.


    Which means; It's as far from preventing double-teaming, as ensuring someone will live longer by putting a Bounty on their head.
    What this suggestion does however; Discourage (and properly), attacking the smallest faction for EXP alone.
    When a Lock-alert starts, however, it's unlikely to stop the logical quick land grabs from all applicable bases, but for general practice, it would work.
    • Up x 2
  3. adamts01

    That's the idea. The faction with the most territory should be double teamed. I suppose I could have worded the title better.
    • Up x 1
  4. FateJH

    If your goal was to discourage double-teaming, creating a logical pattern that induces double-teaming seems counterproductive. Regardless, your proposal is based on experience gain; in normal discourse, the assumption is that you make no headway against the horde-faction as a pure numbers game; thus, you don't have the chance to take advantage of the multipliers; and, that is also the fight that seems plausible. That's why second (and, sometimes, third) place are going after the targets they are.
  5. adamts01

    I wasn't clear enough in my post. What I notice as a very common occurrence is that one faction and then the next has their territory reduced to almost nothing. It's not just the under-pop faction either. Once one team starts to get double teamed, they're the easiest target and it snowballs in to that faction getting warpgated from all sides. The end goal would be to keep the continent split pretty evenly. I've noticed VS on Connery sitting around 20% population most days over the past two weeks I've been back. But when the continent is evenly split, they have the best teamwork and best players and sometimes pull off a win. If we could better incentivise targeting the largest land holders, then the under-pop would stand a much better chance of winning, and everyone would get better fights. In the end, good fights are all I'm really after, and I think this would be a good step towards that goal.
    • Up x 1
  6. LordKrelas

    Yes.
    Given that's the exact opposite of the "Prevent double-teaming"

    And I agree with the intended concept.
  7. iller

    ehh... I could *almost* see this working ... definitely not as the main mechanic to fix this problem, but maybe as a good supporting incentive
    • Up x 3
  8. adamts01

    I have no idea if it would make a dent or not. Zergs get on a roll and do the most stupid things. But it couldn't hurt. Tying all XP gained in the hex to this system could be the next step.
  9. adamts01

    Ideally this is a preventative measure to keep a faction from having that overwhelming domination in the first place. In that light it could absolutely prevent double teaming. Like I said above also, I don't know if this would really make a difference, and tying all XP earned in the hex to this would have an even bigger impact.

    Something else to keep in mind is that all of this has to be XP/cert neutral. Daybreak has their ideal XP grind set, and have stated that throwing more XP at a problem such as global pop isn't an option. So, if we're going to reward good behavior, we have to punish bad behavior.
    • Up x 1
  10. Luicanus


    At the end of the day, enough smaller supporting mechanics can make the difference. There are a lot that have been suggested on these forums and dismissed because they're not a complete fix or they have their own issues but the point is surely to iteratively improve which is why I'm all for such minor modifiers.
    • Up x 1
  11. iller

    Well yeah, there's LOTs of factors at work there including the fact that Instant Deploy just shoves even MORE n00b/Fodder into that blender and anyone in a Platoon will also typically have that location opened as their main Spawn. ...and so far the only thing I saw Wrel promise in the last Dev stream was a different MAP MARKER around the active spawn which kinda addresses one of the issues we been asking for but not really at all at the same time...

Share This Page