Originally Posted by 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.
|
I'm sorry that being asked to provide an argument is upsetting for you. Your passive-aggressive whining about my "lack of experience" and "inability to grasp" things isn't getting you very far though.
Reading the rest of your post, I get the impression that you're a pretty smart guy, but you're shit at expressing yourself in a brief and concise manner. Let me simplify and then address your points for you:
|
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".
|
"Instead of hiding like bitches in the spawn room until the base flips, defenders should be fighting to get the point back."
|
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.
|
"Defenders
can't leave the spawn room and fight for the point like Men because spawn rooms are often in areas where it's easy for the attackers to surround it and lock it down."
|
If you think 60 seconds is a horrendous amount of time lost, then I don't know how long your attentionspan is,
|
"
http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7...60mao1_500.jpg "
|
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.
|
"It worked in PS1 dammit."
|
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. :/
|
"I'm right, and if you don't blindly accept that I'm right without me taking the effort to defend my assertion then you're dumb!"
- - -
Okay, so, if we were to lay this out in a manner that's actually conducive to a discussion rather than a condescending lecture...
Your asserted problem: Instead of fighting to regain the point, defenders are instead locked into their spawn room and forced to hide like betas while the attackers mercilessly bombard the spawn with bullets and switch thumbs.
Your asserted solution: Configure the capture mechanics so that if a defender manages to re-cap the point, the timer is reset by a minute.
Your asserted argument for how this alleviates the problem: By having the timer reset 60 seconds every time a defender caps the point, you're forcing the attackers to allocate troops away from the spawn-raping toward guarding points, lest they (the attackers) get stuck in an infinitely looping-gif where the timer is repeatedly reset. This also incentivises defenders to push out of the spawn point, as even if they can't re-take the base, re-capping the point for even a moment is accomplishing something by putting the timer back 60 seconds.
Okay. See how easy that was? It took me ~2 minutes to write that, and is much clearer and more concise than your jumble of words.
Now, allow me to retort:
The reason why I think that this proffered solution fails to adequately alleviate the problem is that it does nothing to account for A) the game's
massive population problem, B)shit base layout and C)Human nature- and these three variables are the reason for
why your asserted problem exists.
Consider this scenario. I'm Commander Dees of the NC, leading a full platoon in a gloooooorious offensive on the Vile Scientologists. We've attacked their base, sundered their defenses and driven them into their spawn point. Now comes one of the most critical steps in this attack: containing the enemy and trolling their spawn room until the base flips. Now, according to you, by virtue of a defender getting onto the point and resetting it, that should take some pressure off of the spawn, and best case scenario it could even give the defenders time for reinforcements to arrive. But here's the thing, as a player I'm aware of this mechanic as well. So what's to stop me from simply putting 5 dudes on a point so that my remaining 43 guys can continue throwing bullets at your spawn room like angry chimps throwing shit at people in a zoo? Five guys defending a point will all but ensure that you're not going to be able to take that point back without throwing at least twice as many guys at it, and how do you plan on getting that many people out of your spawn room that's in the process of receiving a bullet enema? By the time most bases flip, the attackers usually have around 60% pop there. With numbers like that, there won't be any temporary recapturing of a point because that's more then enough attackers to simultaneously guard all the points
and still camp your spawn.
So right then and there, this change would be absolutely meaningless without prior changes to spawn room layout and population imbalance.
Regarding human nature, I'm now Commander Ackbar of the VS, and I'm currently getting my shit pushed in by the Noob Conglomerate who's got 60% pop on me and my platoon at this base. What is my incentive to stay and try to defend this base? Yeah, I can "maybe" push out of the spawn and stall for time, at the expense of many lives, but why bother? They've got the entire fucking base locked down, and besides this is base #89 out of 100 bases, and it has zero intrinsic value. Why should I throw my platoon into the meat grinder and stall for time when I could just have us all mass redeploy to base #88 and try to defend from there? It'll certainly be easier- it's a lot less of a pain in the ass to grab all the best positions in an empty base and prepare to defend it from attackers, rather than try to push out of a spawn room. Hell, as VS Commander Haysoos who's sitting at the warp gate with a full platoon, what's my incentive to go to that #89th base with 60% NC pop in it that's got 90 seconds left on the flip timer? They're dug in to hell there, we'd have to gal drop on them and it probably won't even work. Why not instead just deploy to base #88 and dig in there? People follow the path of least resistance, and inter-platoon cooperation within a faction is spotty in Planetside 2 at the best of times. Even with the option to continuously reset a timer, I don't think most people would even care too.
So, TL;DR: there's too many things wrong with the game's meta for this mechanic tweak to be of any value. I know from reading many of your threads over the years that you have answers to most if not all of these problems, but those solutions are beyond the scope of this thread, which is specifically about tweaking the cap reset mechanic. Fix those problems first, then this mechanic may be useful. Though, I'd argue that if those problems were fixed than this change wouldn't even be necessary in the first place.