Base Design Philosophy: Defensibility - Page 2

Rivenshield · 2012-12-17, 05:34 PM

This thread makes me sad.

I frankly don't have anything to add to what anyone else has said.

Figment · 2012-12-17, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

Arclegger has recently shown interest in more defensable designs. He stated in the thread that they did not have enough time to do all these things before planned launch.

Check here: [Suggestion] Outpost Spawn Design (based on existing building)

He's one of the non-PS1 new recruits in my outfit, he knows about my work nd Arclegger's comments (suggested him to contact Arclegger himself with his thoughts and ideas before

). The nice thing is he comes up with similar stuff on his own.

And he shares the opinion of PS1 vets and no, he was recruited on showing initiative, not on how much PS1 he wanted in PS2. :P

So much for the "new players aren't anything like us, the game must adapt" theory some people have always clinged to for defending "it's a different game", what?

Crator · 2012-12-17, 06:02 PM

^ Well, good to see the support for these ideas! They make a lot of sense.

maradine · 2012-12-17, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

Yes, because people don't just camp there with AA or anything...

They do. You run a galaxy low and up the gut, drop a squad of HAs, and crack their MAXs like lobsters. I relished leading that run, win or lose. High risk, high reward, binary victory.

Mordelicius · 2012-12-17, 07:01 PM

They don't want static defense where kills can be farmed. Players will earn XP too much and they lose out on that.

The best solution is to allow the great XP-kill-cooldown mechanic. Basically, each players should only give XP after 2 or 3 minutes after dying. The player who died also wouldn't get kill credit 2 or 3 minutes after death.

With this, they can make the tightest defensive bases and still prevent all the kill farms. This also makes player avoid death since they won't be able to get xp if they keep dying. Of course they have to adjust the Cert points commensurately, but I think this would be a better mechanic.

Lastly this will dissuade all the Aerial kill farmers. They have to wait 2-3 minutes before they can farm all those infantry they just spam killed.

p0intman · 2012-12-17, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

They do. You run a galaxy low and up the gut, drop a squad of HAs, and crack their MAXs like lobsters. I relished leading that run, win or lose. High risk, high reward, binary victory.

This, there was actual logic with the platoon loadout I put in my last post specifically designed to counter an active defense of the skydock, based on experience and game knowledge.

Figment · 2012-12-17, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

They don't want static defense where kills can be farmed. Players will earn XP too much and they lose out on that.

It's funny how in doing that they went so far they created attacker farms.

Wahooo · 2012-12-17, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

They do. You run a galaxy low and up the gut, drop a squad of HAs, and crack their MAXs like lobsters. I relished leading that run, win or lose. High risk, high reward, binary victory.

THIS 1000X

Because taking the skydock felt f-ing awesome. When you won you felt like YOU WON. All the AA and ESF's from both sides harassing and protecting the Gals. And the selfless GAL pilots picking up their platoons along with the parts of the zerg. It took coordination, team-play, and All the elements of the game to succeed and it FELT GOOD to take it. It felt like winning when you took it. Now? park AMS at jump point and rush numbers until you take down their AA and then let the LIBs camp their spawn... yeah another *yawn* PS2 style victory.