Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Rasako, Dec 2, 2013.
yeah, why not?
like the only problem with a void shield would be if you get inside it its rendered usless
Well, that's really useful for canceling out enemy long range weapons.
Pretty similar to PS2, actually. Infiltrators can hack turrets and turn it against the owning faction. It's kind of a pain to deal with when they just go around hacking everything to and not actually using stuff, but overall it isn't a terrible gameplay mechanic.
Then again, we could just have all turrets be neutral, and whoever gets in first gets to pilot it. If you don't want to get shot out, get your friends to defend you.
This is exactly what I was implying.
I'm going to state this as I did in the other defense thread. The problem is that Offense and zerging is OP in most PvP games because there's no adequate defense capability given to the player to counter surprise and aggression. Because nothing happens completely real time on the internet the assault will always have the upper hand as far as reaction goes. Lightning zerging and coordinated shock tactics will always prevail because there WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH firepower keeping an assault back no matter how coordinated a player defense is... unless terrain restricts the avenues of approach. In fact, the only successful places to defend in PS2 are places where you can force attackers into fatal funnels.
The solution for open terrain defense: Augment the defensive positions with auto turrets and artillery that either must be eliminated before advance or require tremendous sacrifice to advance through. Youwould have the option to infiltrate the base and destroy the servitors, magos, or whatever is controlling the AI utilizing tactics, deversions, and stealth. But my main point is you need to make Defensive positions OP in order to tone down the inherent OPness of assault forces.
I'm liking this, though there is the inevitable problem that the attackers will just pile on and on until the defence breaks even in that scenario. That being said, I suppose it is common to loose several points to the advancing enemy before making a stand against them on the third or fourth point. That and the hope that everyone has of no field respawnng (aside from squad beakons), will mean that with every victory, the attackers' forces slowly chip away and if the defenders have a good communication throughout their faction, they can have more reinforcements gathering at the point to which they are tactically retreating.
I thought we were talking about removing base respawning. I like field respawns - those are the destructible units that make a frontline have strategic weight. Even if you mean troops would be ferried in via orbital transports, that's essentially spawning to the front. It's invincible base respawns which suck...
Attackers should have the numerical advantage, held at bay by vastly superior defensive fortifications. It's the defenders who are gradually chipped away, unable to respawn their units. If defenders want to break a siege, they need to either break out and take out the field respawns or call in reinforcements.
Just gonna point out that we are basing this off a tabletop game that has practically a dozen different scenarios for what we are debating. It shouldn't be impossible to adapt them or even just use them straight off. There are scenarios for having 3 times as many attackers as defenders as attackers and it still being fun and balanced. It is not exactly the same thing but it chunks of it are applicable.
Not all of it would be usable but we have several books worth of guidelines on how to actually do this, why not exploit 25 years of TT wisdom? It couldn't hurt right?
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Of course I meant no base respawns, but allow dropping/warping in at a squad beackon