[Figment]

It should be very obvious why I say should and must, if you don't see why, you lack experience. I presume the people I talk to have some basic grasp of logistics and experience in what they encounter outside of a spawnroom and what kind of defense one can find around a point.

I gave ample reasons. Don't pretend I didn't give any reasons, in fact, you're the one who hasn't provided much reasoning whatsoever aside from you thinking it's a pain in the arse to capture some bases in PS2, which... is rather ludicrous and you haven't substantiated at all.


Defenders on the other hand keep getting pinned down in a room with few chances to get out and even less incentive to get out because their task is unachievable. This alone is sufficient reason. That you didn't grasp this the first time I said it and completely overlooked the reasoning is... "somewhat indicative". IMO.





As long as a ticker is running, there should be a major incentive to try and get that point back. Any incentive requires a reward, a chance to win. With no chance of winning, since attackers will likely retake the point fast, nobody will even try for the points and just whore kills from the false safety of a spawnroom. False safety, because it guarantees a loss, even at a higher K/D. A major reason why I don't like that spawns can't be lost till the base turns, because it provides an incentive to just stay in the spawns and doesn't force you to "do or die".

Spawn rooms should be in relatively safe locations, so there's little incentive to hang around the spawnroom. In PS2, it's usually in a sieged location from the moment the base attack begins. This is an incentive for passive spawnroom defense, rather than active defense. There being an instant battlefield reward for capturing a point (rather than some meaningless experience points) is an actual incentive to try and take it back and provides a meaningful objective for even small resecure teams, because it allows them to gain time to restore order to a base. Without time, there's no battle.


If you think 60 seconds is a horrendous amount of time lost, then I don't know how long your attentionspan is, but we dealt with 15 minute losses, ie. 900 second resets in PlanetSide 1. That's right, that's 15x longer resets than I'm talking about now.


And it worked fine as an incentive to do the most insane strike attempts and was extremely rewarding for the defending party and quite brutal on the attacker's moral. Hence I'm suggesting a compromise.

And yes, as attackers, we held those points with 3 attackers against 15 for those 15 minutes (provided the 15 were poor players and come in one by one), due to the spawnroom being possible to disable, the sheltered Control Console locations, the SOI that prevented drop pods on the base and the combat engineering allowing to set up a delaying and alarming defense grid and thus being able to control and funnel enemy movements and logistics (including spawns and travel time).

Note also that the method of capture (zone around point) or interaction with point where you need to be covered for up to a minute without interruption also matters a lot.

It's those things PS2 IMO lacks or made some rather poor combination choices in. A different combination may work, but it's not the best combination of base design and capture systems right now either. Hence I'm proposing some adjustments.


PS: Blaxican, nothing personal, but if you can't see defenders need time to dislodge an attacker's grip and have a harder time controlling the point in PS2 than attackers do, then I'm simply not exceptionally impressed by one's observational prowess. :/