Game theory: PS2 base design without /jetpacks/ and Liberator /cannons/ - Page 2

Figment · 2013-04-12, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by moosepoop

yes.

when im in a tank, i zoom in to shoot something for 5 seconds, and i get randomly killed by jetpack c4 all the time, with no warning.

Originally Posted by Cats

Well I suppose it was inevitable that bad players would go after C4 next

No need to be insulting to Moose. The amount of times I've ended tanks by a Light Assault C4 attack on some MBT's rear or top by me are very, very frequent (daily get ribbons for it now).

C4 doesn't give tanks any warning or chance to react. Sometimes they get lucky and speedboost away or back up so I come into view (or worse, accidently hit me) while I'm placing C4.

The only thing they could hypothetically do is have radar. Gunners don't matter. Gunners are equally easily distracted and focused, that's just a matter of timing the approach and staying out of sight for the C4 user.

The amount of "Extreme Menace Kills" taken out this way is huge and I wouldn't call these bad tankers. After all, all I need is two seconds in their rear. Even if they are aware of my presence, it's often not enough to do something about it. And yes, I gladly risk death in C4 suicide jump-'n-runs (see my K/D).

If you were to suggest this topic is motivated by C4, you'd be wrong btw. It's more motivated by the effects of 3D defense design and defensibility. And me ignoring 100% of defenses when I play LA.

So in that respect, what would change? Bridgefights. I currently use the support structure to jump up behind enemy units without them having any chance of seeing me approach. Particularly AMSes and heavy tanks. With the surge version, this would be a lot harder to accomplish. Especially due to terrain becoming an impediment, where it's currently an asset.

Stardouser · 2013-04-12, 11:49 AM

Without jetpacking much of the game's uniqueness would be removed and at most bases claymores etc would be much more effective for defense since no one can do anything but go in thri doors.

As for C4, that's fine. Jetpacks don't give you much speed,so use a secondary gunner and don't camp next to high places they can drop down from.

ShadoViper · 2013-04-12, 01:43 PM

What about removing c4 from light assault instead of jetpack removal?

moosepoop · 2013-04-12, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by ShadoViper

What about removing c4 from light assault instead of jetpack removal?

just make jetpacks have noise.

Figment · 2013-04-12, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by ShadoViper

What about removing c4 from light assault instead of jetpack removal?

Would have no impact on base design, so not relevant to the thread.

Kail · 2013-04-12, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

After all, all I need is two seconds in their rear.

Quoting for posterity

Tom Peters · 2013-04-12, 04:13 PM

If there's one thing I miss from Planetside 1, it's definitely the old liberator bombing method.

It was so much more epic, realistic, and it really gave you a sense of "Holy fucking shit, it's raining bombs!" rather than just *Boomurdead* ala Dalton.

Wahooo · 2013-04-12, 04:17 PM

I like the idea of jetpacks having noise... at least be as loud as the infiltrators cloak.
Not sure I care much about jetpacks and base design. I'm happy about the removal of IA dropping whole squads on top of bases, the JP allows for creativity and great placement of spawn beacons which I think if overall base design continues to improve in defensability then these will be keys to victory.

Libs being bombers rather than gunships I feel would greatly increase my enjoyment of the game.

Rothnang · 2013-04-12, 04:22 PM

What would happen?

1. Nobody would play Light assaults anymore.
2. Nobody would play Liberators anymore.

That's pretty much all.

You never needed a light assault to get past the wall, a squad beacon or instant action drop will do just fine. You can also just walk right through the doors on an Infiltrator.

OctavianAXFive · 2013-04-12, 04:23 PM

1.)
Q.1: Base defense would become moderately easier. Assuming they make it so you can’t just run up the side of a tower, LA’s aren’t the real issue when trying to hold out. There are other glaring defense issues that are the real nemesis. That being said, the jetpack does inherently increase the number of attack vectors, meaning defenders have that many more directions to pay attention to.

With Surge LA’s would be better able to avoid grenades in certain situations.
Tanks and Max suites would be safer in CQC. Also normal infantry don’t have to worry about getting C4 bombed by a suicide LA.

Q.2: Diving out of liberators or ESFs and surviving without an ejection seat.
Attacking would be a little harder.

The LA class would generally be a lot harder to utilize properly. I’m not sure there would be a point to it with just Surge.

Q.3: I think infiltrators would have a lot to gain. The Light Assault is all about gaining a tactical edge either through attacking from a surprise direction or bypassing some layer of defense. The infiltrator would be better tasked to do this in some situations with the demise of the jetpack.

Across the board I think heavy assault will see the biggest increase. Not only is heavy assault an excellent class in terms of firepower, but infiltrators do not default with an SMG or Scout Rifle. More casual players would not spend certs on getting an SMG or scout rifle, though I suppose they could drop 7USD for a single digital gun for (essentially) one class for one faction (my disdain for their marketing model is second to none).

Using the beacon or other future forms of orbital drop deployment would see an increase in benefit.

Assuming the holes in walls are removed and people can’t walk up towers, a stronger combined arms approach would be needed to breach the outer walls. Heavy fire power and snipers would be more necessary to keep the defenders off. It would also mean other forms of siege equipment might be necessary for getting over walls or terrain obstacles.

Q.4: A steep decrease in people playing LA. I don’t think it would have that deep of an impact on player behavior if implemented tomorrow beyond the extinction of LA players.

Q.5: Those who stick it out and play LA would probably stick to using shotguns or SMGs. The carbine is no longer an optimal weapon because the ranges LA would be effective would be limited. Other classes have better weapons and abilities at range. With only surge, the presumed use of the LA would be to get in close, dashing from cover to cover. It could be effective but honestly a Max Suit is better suited for the task you’re asking of them at that point.

Other Thoughts:
Right now, the problem is that LA is the default class for scaling a defended wall. That’s obviously what it was designed to do, but it gets stale in terms of giving the players tactical options. The real crime LA commits in terms of base design is the lack of depth generated by having it. Additionally, C4 bombing is brutally shallow and not fun for the people being bombed.
The bases are designed pretty well for light assault to be useful but not overpowered, even if they are the single best way of breaching the outer wall. They can bypass certain walls, but only if they are undefended. This is often the case because walls are deathtraps for defenders. I find it much more useful to stay around the shield generators, the obvious target of the light assaults. I think the curtain walls around bases are too big in most cases, leaving plenty of gaps for light assaults to get through. Making the large facilities a little smaller in diameter would help. I have a simple design solution that would help make the walls just better. Have a slightly raised firing platform all around the wall so the defenders can peak over the raised crenellations. Right now you only have a few safe places to stand on a wall and shoot from. The predictability of those places is what makes them into death traps and easy for LA to bypass.

The LA class is too heavily tied to the jetpack to get rid of it outright. Surge won’t make the class useful in the same way other class powers make them useful. Other powers/abilities would have to be considered. I think right now LA is too good for how spammable it is.

Here is my crack at it.

What about making Light Assault something you “pull” like a Max Suit? You spend infantry resources and you can equip a Light Assault suit once every X minutes. You could completely revamp the LA class this way by making it another kind of max suit. Take away the conventional guns and give this new suit some special weapons. Instead of a jetpack think of it like an iron man suit but far weaker in terms of durability. This would mean you would still be able to jump over walls, but it’s a more dangerous option, making other options more appealing, which is all that I think is really needed.
I really hate C4 and landmines in FPS games. I can understand them in PS2 but they always feel cheesy. If you take the C4 away from the LA class, then you’re left with a novel jet pack guy. That really limits LA’s uses beyond slaying enemy troops and shutting off generators. It kind of pigeon holes them. That’s why I think turning it into a cool iron manesque suit with varied direct damage abilities would allow for more creative options both from a design perspective and from a player implementation perspective. You’re still able to get the edge on tanks and maxes, but you can create a more dynamic battle than just “will he get the C4 down and detonated before he’s shot?”

2.1.)

Q.1: ESF battles with liberators would be even easier. Not that I really care for a single liberator to even be remotely capable of soloing an ESF in the first place.

Q.2: Bombing would be a lot harder. The liberator would have to be a lot faster because you would have to be directly over your target (I am assuming we’re talking about ye olde carpet bombs) in order to engage. With the cannon, the liberator can act a bit more like a gunship, firing from an off-angle. That won’t be the case with dumb bombs. Enemy rockets and flak will have more time to track the Liberator if it has to be directly overhead of whatever it’s trying to bomb. It also means the liberator is going to have a highly predictable course.

Q.3: ESF ground pounders would be more valuable. They are already more useful than Liberators because of the crew requirements versus the damage output. 3 ESFs are already more survivable and dish out more damage per person. The flip side of course is that the skill gap for using a liberator is lower. That would change with the addition of bomb bays. The ESFs would now also be easier to use in terms of ground attack if you forced lib crews to coordinate directly with each other.

It would increase the importance of spotting or some sort of scout radar for use with the liberator so that the pilot can see on his mini-map what he/she is flying over.

Q.4: I think Liberator pilots will hate it, but I don’t think overall behavior will change dramatically across all styles. It’s hard to say whether you will actually see more ESFs. There is undoubtedly a sub group of people that specifically just like the liberator as an air vehicle and would not switch to ESFs but abandon the liberator. I suppose on the other end of that will be people who might really enjoy the new liberator mechanic to balance out the people who stop using it. This is a trickier one to hammer down as to what exactly people would do with this kind of change.

Q.5: I think I’ve made it pretty clear what I think would happen to liberators. To add to what I’ve previously said, I think you’ll see more liberator packs and less solo hero bombers.

2.2.) Pretty much the same vein of things as 2.1

Q.1: Killing Liberators with just about everything.

Q.2: Killing just about everything with Liberators.

Q.3: See above.

Q.4: See above.

Q5: It would just make them too bad. At least the carpet bombs could be potent but a reduced rate of fire would make the Zephyr not quite as useful. I suppose this would also promote using liberators in packs, which I like better anyway. You might also see more people switch to the Dalton.

Other thoughts:

I’ve thought about bombers in PS2 some since I did a little write up on some neat brain storms I had about faction specific bombers. The Liberator’s problems are not inherent to the Liberator. They are out of place in the game’s ecosystem. I wouldn’t actually change much with the Liberator itself, beyond maybe a few minor tweaks here or there.

A lot of other things need to change before we can reexamine the Liberator as a unit. Right now the relationship between air and ground is in turmoil. Inherently, bombers are powerful; otherwise militaries wouldn’t use them as pervasively as they do. A bomber’s strength comes mostly from the fact that it does high damage to a targeted location from a direction that location is lightly protected from. Instead of toying with the Liberator, I think we need to toy with its ecosystem. Of course you can make bases have better air cover or air defense, but what about the attackers attacking a base? Their sunderer is extremely exposed. No matter what you do to the Liberator, you’re really not going to change that. Right now the counter play is to use ESFs, sky guards and the crowd favorite burster maxes to cover the sunderer. The problem becomes that attackers have to focus too much on defending their supply line. Defenders should have an advantage while on defense, meaning that the attackers are going to need to throw as much of their weight into the actual battle for the base as possible. But taking away resources to stop air assaults puts a drain on that. But if you make it require less resources to defend the sunderer by buffing mobile AA, then you run into trouble with making aircraft impotent in all but a few niche situations. Additionally, it’s extremely boring to sit there waiting by your sunderer to see if an enemy counter attack ever comes. The vicious cycle continues when that mobile AA is deployed inside any fortified area. I point to the TR defense of the Skydock on Mattherson. The base is terribly exposed to the air but if you put 50 dual bursters on rooftops, it might as well have had a warpgate shield. If you increase base defense to go along with strong mobile AA, then the problem is further compounded.

Bases need strong stationary AA to deal with Liberators. I think I’d go ahead and refund people certs and write off A2G ESFs entirely, maybe creating another solo piloted ground attack vehicle later that isn’t as agile or cheap (faction specific?). From there I would question AMS Sunderers and what I could do about creating an attacker forward deployment that isn’t woefully exposed to defensive bombers while at the same time scaling back ground based mobile AA. Perhaps at that point we can examine how to tune Liberators but I don’t think they will ever not be incredibly devastating unless you have an air force to swat them off.

I know people don’t like the whole “air counters air” mentality but I have to say, SoE didn’t invent that, that’s inherently the way it is (unless you consider highly sophisticated G2A radar guided missile systems, which is another can of worms in a game like this). Only aircraft can really ever go up and find other aircraft. Flak guns were always a crapshoot, relying on ridiculously thick coverage of the sky to be effective.

A single unmolested bomber will always be horridly powerful unless everyone is underneath either the ground or some indestructible structure. The way to stop them from doing damage at all really should come in the form of intervention by other aircraft. Otherwise you get a really vicious cycle which we are in the middle of.

This is the part where everyone starts screaming for cloaked AMS's but I'm not gonna go there because it's going to wander off topic.

Creative problems require creative solutions. There is much to ponder but it will quickly go outside the scope of this thread.

Rothnang · 2013-04-12, 04:56 PM

The reason why a bomber that's operating unopposed is such an absurdly powerful unit is because there is simply no counterplay to it. The availability of viable cover against an aircraft simply can't be made big enough to perpetually evade getting shot from the air without putting roofs over half of Auraxis.

Conversely air really has no meaningful counterplay to AA, and what we end up with is just a straight up spreadsheet war. All that the devs ever accomplished by tweaking damage numbers and stuff like that was change how many people you need to put on AA duty.

Nothing about this situation will ever change until the engagements are framed more fairly.

Cats · 2013-04-12, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

No need to be insulting to Moose. The amount of times I've ended tanks by a Light Assault C4 attack on some MBT's rear or top by me are very, very frequent (daily get ribbons for it now).

C4 doesn't give tanks any warning or chance to react. Sometimes they get lucky and speedboost away or back up so I come into view (or worse, accidently hit me) while I'm placing C4.

The only thing they could hypothetically do is have radar. Gunners don't matter. Gunners are equally easily distracted and focused, that's just a matter of timing the approach and staying out of sight for the C4 user.

The amount of "Extreme Menace Kills" taken out this way is huge and I wouldn't call these bad tankers. After all, all I need is two seconds in their rear. Even if they are aware of my presence, it's often not enough to do something about it. And yes, I gladly risk death in C4 suicide jump-'n-runs (see my K/D).

If you were to suggest this topic is motivated by C4, you'd be wrong btw. It's more motivated by the effects of 3D defense design and defensibility. And me ignoring 100% of defenses when I play LA.

So in that respect, what would change? Bridgefights. I currently use the support structure to jump up behind enemy units without them having any chance of seeing me approach. Particularly AMSes and heavy tanks. With the surge version, this would be a lot harder to accomplish. Especially due to terrain becoming an impediment, where it's currently an asset.

Why do you hate fun? From the "juice" suggestion and this one I get the impression that Planetside should be all about throwing yourself into a sea of grenades and never deviating from the blob or the meatgrinder. A class like LA rewards a smart and independent player who can poke holes in a defense. Is there some reason why this is worse than rewarding the type of play we currently see at the meatgrinder i.e. sprint into bullets, or hose someone sprinting into your bullets. If that was the only way to go I would not even bother with this game.

Rothnang · 2013-04-13, 01:50 AM

Well, on a lot of bases the LA is a little bit too free to come in from unexpected places, and what's more damning really there are just way too many freaking hiding spots for them so the defenders are forced to constantly have their own LAs go up on the roofs and do battle with the enemies. Like in Techplants, it's just ridiculous that once someone is up on the "gundeck" roof they can just hang out there and gank people all day long. It gives the attacker a more defensible position inside the enemy base than anything the defender has. At least put a grav shaft somewhere so the defenders don't need to pull LAs just to have a chance to keep their roof clear.

Figment · 2013-04-13, 03:51 AM

Cat, that is a ridiculous suggestion.

"Hate fun?"

That is like a Republican asking a Democrat "why do you hate America?" upon critique and saying "you aren't patriots". It is simply a matter of vision difference.

As I use LA constantly, without having to work to reach spots, I find la's create meatgrinders just as much as they avoid them. The attacker is the one grinding the defender's meat.

As for your comment on grenades, considering I've asked to lower the effectiveness a lot before, I'd say quite the contrary. One hit kills are cheap and ruin a lot of fun. Ganking ruins a lot of fun and one of the main units able to gank players out of nowhere is the LA. Particularly with shotgun. It discourages people from playing if they just get rolled all the time.

LA's contribute a lot to people not being able to make a stand, most people seem to underappreciate the impact of LA though.

What I find interesting is how many people think they or others couldn't live without a jetpack, yet don't seem to realise just how powerful and impacting an ability like this is. Without LA, walls and high ground would be a much greater defender's strength. Distribution of defenders would immediately be much more focused and fights would be much more push forward, push back oriented without LA. Just think of how an AMP station would change or even how currently indefensible outposts would be much harder to take. LA is the reason that a small squad can't use chokepoints in a building, because it is LA that gets behind them or uses a window against them. The main reason people don't use Galaxies a lot is LA and spawnbeacons.

See, if you think that towers would become too hard to take, you could also just say "towers would need a secondary means of getting up". The impact of high ground for defense would increase, the capacity to deal with larger differences in numbers would increase since the amount of attack vectors would be reduced.

I don't want a pure meatgrinder, but, if you would have no jetpacks, you could have more SCUs in or right next to spawnbuildings since they would not be the first thing to die anymore to LA ignoring the defenses. This would increase the importance of spec ops and stealth ops and group ops. Again, note that building design can change, an extra flight of stairs could easily be added. Just remember that for a lot of people, being able to hold, especially against odds or break a defense by good play is very rewarding and satisfying. You called LA rewarding smart play, but really, you don't have to think while using it as much as you would with other infantry.

Now, the only problem I can see is spawn beacons resulting on drops on top of buildings: but that is something you can fix with a sphere of influence.
The remainder is base design.

But go to bases like Aurora Materials Lab and look at the ways Light Assault can ignore any defensive position and how many actual practical chokepoints are left for defenders. Check how large a portion of the base is not fought over due to constant high ground positions from camping attackers.

Rothnang · 2013-04-13, 04:37 AM

I think this is something base design can address, like by having walls that aren't open everywhere, but instead have murderholes to fire out of without giving LAs a thousand ways inside. I mean, LAs should have maybe twice the access points as other troops, not unlimited access.