Originally Posted by tjmonk15
While i have heard/seen people say fun > realism, making things fair from an offensive vs. defensive position means leaning towards realism.
In real life, "bases" (read castles, bases, outposts, forward positions, etc.) always favor the defensive. And it should be the same in PS2. Favor the defenders.
Go log in PS1 and tell me people actually stick around to defend a base vs. just falling back and trying to protect the next base. Defenders need a chance to win. in PS1, attackers always win, its just a matter of when.
Defenders should have a chance to win, ie. push out the invaders and secure their location. and then push forward. In PS1, defenders just stuck around for a little bit to get some bexp then fell back once they were dying too much. They never really had a chance to hold their base (Not once a sizable force decided to attack, no matter how large the defending force.)
An attacking force should 100% be fighting an up hill battle. This fact (in game) will do nothing besides help the persistence mechanic of Planet-Side. A player knows if he helped capture a base, more than likely will still be on his side tomorrow (or any time in the future, if this aspect is honored)
-Monk
|
Given equal pops the defenders can easily win. It's only a matter of "when not if" when they attackers outpop. And if you outpop your enemy you should win.
And what the hell are you talking about? Nobody falls back from "dying too much" on defense. The people attacking are the ones dying too much.
Attacking is an uphill battle in ps1.
quick question, do any of you guys actually play planetside?
2011-08-07, 12:58 AM
Hybrid Mode
