Originally Posted by Malorn
* Do resources need a bigger role? (in theory, a small outfit can better do resource denial with small territories)
* Does territory capture need to be slowed down to allow for response, regrouping, and to wear down a zerg?
* Does defense need to be more rewarding XP-wise?
* Do vehicles need to cost more resources to help reduce spam?
* Do deployment options need to be reduced to encourage more natural concentration of force? (I'm thinking PS1 here where you had 3-4 options on where to spawn and it kept forces together so you weren't steamrolled as much and opened up opportunity for small outfits to avoid the concentrations)
This is a sampling of the things I think about every day (all of which I'm leaning 'yes' towards - some feedback from you would be helpful). Feel free to add to the questions I posed above. I'm reading the responses here and paying attention. Love to know what you think.
|
Feedback! We love feedback! Thank you for posting!
The following were written out of order as fancy and stupor took over in turns.
#1: I've never been a fan of resources being the driving motive for a fight. They're a long acting metagame mechanic that, rather than changing the terrain of the fight, affects a side's morale as they can no longer defend against one type of attack. (Re: Higby's comments on Air being the game's AA, remove a side's aircraft resource and you can't be countered.) Give them a different role, time is enough of a resource cost for vehicles as is (respawn timers = time as a cost that's paid after pulling).
And now that I've remembered that this is supposed to be about outfit size, the question becomes is making resources a tighter control on player experience worth the possible enhancements that it would give to small outfits? Probably not.
#2: I'm a fan of a slower game but that's because it opens up space for socializing between squadmates but I know that speed has been a theme for PS2 so probably not. If your goal is to allow for response time then the best option is to reduce the paths that the attackers can take allowing defenders to wall themselves up at a choke point using the capture time of the territories between the two forces to buy them time to prepare.
#4: As Higby has said in the past that the problem with cost increase is that some people only want to do one thing and that thing requires a vehicle. If you're only interested in tanking then you're really being hurt by increased tank prices. I'd argue that the vehicle issue can't be solved through just "There are too many vehicles!" thinking. Making them more expensive won't reduce vehicles in a way that makes the game better. The two things in my mind that are up with vehicles are that 1: Vehicles are much more fun and 2: Vehicles are force multipliers with no effective downside.
Don't make vehicles less fun, just make them less utilitarian. (talking about base openness here) There is only one place where infantry are more important than vehicles and that's inside a biolab.
If you want some examples on this, check out how many people have bought the other AA arm vs an AI or AV arm for the MAX. Sounds weird I know but stick with my logic. If infantry fights were common and the opportunity for them was often then you'd see a large number of AI arm sales. The number of times AV MAX arms are useful I can count on one hand and that single finger stands for when there's a tank right outside the spawn. AA arms will probably be far outselling the other two because MAXs are responsible for keeping the rest of the infantry safe from the vehicle that can most easily spawn camp them. Though it might also tell you that there's not much quality AA in the game.
#5: The deployment options trimming was something that I was honestly expecting to happen every day I was playing in beta. Heck, if you really want to play around with it and add some possible meta-ES have the NC be able to spawn at the nearest Sundy, the TR the nearest 2, and the VS the nearest 3. Then of course you would have the NC be able to spawn at the nearest 3 bases, the TR the 2 nearest, and the VS just at the closest. Squad beacons and home bases/AMS would be exempt from these limits.
Not all territories need be equal. Nor do all hexs need to give the owning empire the ability to hack adjacent hexs. Try breaking up Indar to take advantage of the landscape and make solid lines of conflict rather than amorphous lines of scrimmage. This would make points that act as gateways so that some regions become high priority and thus tempting targets for lightning raids and harrowing defenses. Obviously these areas would be built up with an eye for defense.
Robo has some great stuff in his post, I disagree with #6 as such an event would cause players to constantly chase it rather than getting swept up in a large organic fight. Remember, not everyone liked Rabbit ball events (I met some who actively hated them). Rabbit ball did have its place but it would have been best if done on a once a week basis on the secondary. #7 should be done with tunnels, claustrophobia and confined firefights can bring back some of that old, pushing through a base from a backdoor feeling of having multiple paths to a goal where every bit of cover could hide an enemy. Totally agree with numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8. Though I'd add in that LLU doesn't have to be the only way to cap a base and
there really should be a thread for ideas on how bases could be captured. I have some issues with #3 as while the benefit was the reason for going behind lines to cut supplies, gens were always a target during any fight and were protected as such. The open nature of PS2 architecture prevents this as anything not in the core of the base is indefensible. The devs have seen this and the way it's being dealt with is putting the gen either inside the core of the base or putting the shield generator that protects it in the core. But there's also another reason for gen demolition...
Also, story time.
Suspicious Activity, if anyone on this forum knows that name I'll be surprised. It was a small ephemeral outfit created way back in PS1's past. It was built with the idea of speed, skill, and resource denial. The members would work in groups of 2 piloting mossies between bases and hacking out fresh gear while running. The goal was to see how fast you could destroy the spawn room and gen in a base and then get back out. The results were impressive. The live fire exercise I saw ended a large fight by destroying half of Cyssor's bases in a short enough time that the NC couldn't respond. There's more to the story but any more risks being sentimental.
Spawn point denial is something that is currently ruled over by a single thing, the spawn generator. Having 2 points of weakness in the direct destruction of the tubes should be legitimate. After all, spawn camping doesn't happen if the tubes can't spawn anyone. Also, tower/territory spawnrooms shouldn't be involatile sanctuaries who's only remedy is conquest.
And I seem to have made a giant post again. I should stop doing that.