Background Image

Making Defense Feel Impactful/rewarding

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Rasako, Dec 2, 2013.

  1. Kakuzo New Member

    Even though at first I had issues with the PS2 bases , I think I understand why they designed them as such.

    If we look at the extremes of the scale of base defensiveness, you can have lightly-defended bases, or heavily-defended bases. PS2 has the first, and PS1 the second.

    This caused PS1 base battles to be really difficult for the attacker, and required a lot of coordination and force from the attacking side. If the defending and attacking force was equal, usually the defender would win, and the attacker would get bored and fall back to attack somewhere else. If the defenders attacked the other side's base, it could also be a win for the defenders, and then you basically have a stand-still. No side can cap the other sides base.
    In PS2, it's much easier to capture a base. With equal forces, the defenders have only a slight advantage, and the battle can really go either way. If the defenders win, they will usually continue and push the enemy back into THEIR base, going from defense to offense.

    The bottom line is that PS2 is much more fluid, you are constantly going from defense to offense, and is much more gratifying to a player that has little game time. PS1 is more like a long, action chess game, and is not immediately gratifying. PS1 is like a soccer game, with both teams playing defensively - slow, and will probably end with a 0:0. Ps2 is like basketball - more action, and a lot more scores.

    -k
  2. Canderous Plasma_Jesus Subordinate

    I think the defenders should get a decent advantage over the attackers, if they have prepared beforehand. Such as setting up more fortifications, or having defined tactics and fallback paths. However the attackers can also plan beforehand, the fact that the defense is entrenched should give them an advantage. (I like to say 3 attackers equals 1 defender as a baseline example, although that is certainly not always the case)
  3. Grigdusher Grigdusher Arch-Cardinal

    this is a really important thing for a successfull pvp based game.
    Bishop520 likes this.
  4. Luciasar Luciasar Well-Known Member

    Think about what bases represent in planetside - their primary purpose is to be spawn points. They allow you to spawn in a different area of the map, and they provide you with resources/vehicles/etc after you spawn.

    Harkening back to an older discussion of spawning, what if spawns were handled as a purely player deployed destructible resource? Think planetside with only sunderers and a warpgate - zero invincible base spawns past your home base. That would lead to a more dynamic front with spawns placed where they can be defended, not where the map dictates. Bases would become valuable not because they contain the spawn by default, but because they are a secure location in which to deploy one.

    You "take the base" when you actually take the base, overrunning the enemy and destroying their spawn units, claiming that defensible location and its resources/guns/fortifications for yourself by deploying your own spawns.

  5. This sounds like a good idea. It would really prompt those players who don't normally take part in group operations into doing so. However I think that after a small amount of time playing the game all the best spots would be mined and in would settle into a rut where the spawns are almost always in one of these places.

    Unless of course you had defenders constructing defences so as to protect their spawns and a system that encourages them to not be predictable (artillery bombardments etc). This would greatly enhance the idea of having people fight over the whole territory rather than just the base. Each time you fight there the defences have changed as well as the locations of the spawns and it feels like a new warzone. This could help prevent stagnation.
  6. Luciasar Luciasar Well-Known Member


    I liked the idea because it encourages a dynamic warfront, instead of node-based corridors. There were "ideal" places for sundies in planetside 2... sort of. But it really depended on what stage the battle was at. You placed a sunderer by balancing how likely it was that it'd be blown up versus how likely your own guys would be to use it based on the legwork they'd have to do. It wasn't just about how defendable the location was, it was reliant on a whole collection of things. Where is the enemy armor column? Do your guys have enough cover to get close to the attackers? Is there enemy air in the region? Is there a convenient rock nearby for friendly snipers?

    Often you'd see sunderers in "standard" locations, but just as often you'd see them someplace unusual or even in the wide open with a huge guard of tanks, turrets and engineers providing a living wall of cover. It all depended on the battle. In my opinion these cases represented the best fights in PS2, where you had two (or three!) opposing fronts constantly swaying and shifting with the tides of battle, rather than one larger force trying to dominate an invincible spawn node in the center of a base.
    Tjeknalis, Bishop520 and Arminius like this.
  7. Arminius Arminius Active Member

    Yes indeed, but it should not only be complicated, it should also be difficult.
    If the bases even have some walls, more of a sequence to disabling defences, and decked-out to be more heavily fortified. In PS2 it was always a one-two-three step to victory or less. And the steps were ridiculously simplified, and the turrets and walls weren't that great; they were too easily counter-acted. Why not actually have strategic targets, that are difficult to access as well as being difficult to disable.
    Instead of "oh let's just stand here blow up this generator for the shields to go down. Oh ok, more shield generators. Oh wow yet one last generator before we win." You should actually have a completely different variety of various keys that you must fight over, that actually make sense and serve purpose; other than to only be destroyed or repaired.

    For instance, yes maybe the preliminary defences could be some form of generators, as that is a basic principle of scifi warfare. However, why not include some more interesting objectives, such as: a comms. relay tower (or perhaps an entire array of antennae which must be jammed or destroyed), a targeting computer that controls automated turrets, a fortified landing pad which secures supply and reinforcement drops, a power generator (which would require hacking/shutdown) but then triggers an auxiliary unit that must be deactivated, or the main generators will just return to operation.

    And most importantly: you could also have the base with all of the above in a unique combination, and each base would vary in key-point types and combinations (some would have an artillery cannon instead of a landing pad, etc.)
    So you would need to first disable the automated turrets - before you couuld access the generators. Afterwhich you could disable the comms. tower/array to prevent the defenders from calling in more reinforcements. Then you would need to disable the main and auxiliary generator within a short window - before you could proceed to the landing pad. Then at the landing pad, you would need to simply blockade it, disable a guidance system, or close the bay doors preventing entry (to prevent players from reinforcing the base manually). After all this, you could finally breach the command and control room and cap it like you would sit on a flag, with a timer of some reasonable amount.
    Something like this would stop every tom, dick, and harry, from just zerg rushing everything. While at the same time, it doesn't stop tom, dick, and harry from working together to achieve the same goal.

    Intricate little details and instances such as these are only the very basics of what could really be utilized in base-defence scenarios. And the best part about that is; the devs could build it so there's always the option to go straight for the core objective, but it'd be incredibly difficult to do so and would most definitely be a hefty cost to the attacking side.


    A base should always have more than 3 over-simplified fruitless stages that are ridiculously repetitive. In-fact, bases should have a minimum of 3 stages, that are all intricately entwined and actually make sense to the player; as if it were derived from a real scenario.

    Though the funny thing is when people hear the word "complicated" (and read a post, such as mine) they become frightened. Though that doesn't mean it has to become virtually impossible or become a second job as opposed to fun.

  8. This my main gripe with PS2s system is this constant mindless practically identical structures with the same goal over and over again. It would be nice to see some variation in structures as well as in appearance not just tactically. For example a base that has been held for so long by the orks begins to look more ramshackle and generally orky, until there's nothing left of the original structure underneath. It would make penetrating deep into enemy lines more visual and obvious. It would give an assault more character because it gives you enemy bases to invade rather than just... bases like Planetside.
  9. Tankred Cloten Subordinate


    Immediate rewards work towards enticing a player to work for a victory. I never played the objective in Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty 4. When my brother and friends introduced me to Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 4, I noted a difference between the two. Battlefield 4 did not give me incentive to defend an objective in a Large Conquest battle with 64 players because I did not get the same satisfaction (as assaulting like an action-movie star) nor did I make significant progress in unlocking weapons that I'm personally attached to/strive for.

    Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 gave me incentive to play the objective in Holding Capture Points, Interacting with Objectives, and, in the process, forward my team's progression to victory. On my screen, with every kill on the objective as well as each completion of the objective, I saw the numbers from bonuses. With every kill, I would get 100 points + 100 for defending/assaulting the objective + 10 points for standing on a control point or 300 points for capturing a headquarters. Objectives like arming or defusing a bomb gave 300 points. In a game with 12-24 players with a console's small map, myself, my brother, and our friends would accumulate 3 thousand to 30 thousand points in a game depending on how we played the game. Eternal Crusade may not allow for single soldier feats of valor (there should be 5-10 seconds given to head to head fights) that CoD and Battlefield allow for with 3 on target shots from a 35 round magazine. So the same objective-reward feature would would be completely different in EC to appropriately entice, to draw in players to retreat from a clash in some killing field to defend or assault a base.

    If there is anything to take from my post;

    Small scale battles like 5v5 games always have players intimately fighting for the objective(s). The effectiveness of the participants wanes as there is an increase of ground to cover, objectives to capture, and player pool as well.

    On-screen, immediate rewards qualify as strong incentives to bring gamers together in giving a combined effort for the same objective (or, from another perspective, the reward of such action).


    I have no experience in war games like Planetside, so I have no input to give on dynamic base assaulting/defending features; however I've read several intriguing posts within this thread that give me all kinds of anxiousness to, hopefully, experience in Eternal Crusade.

    My input comes from having a background consisting of console games like Gears of War, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Unreal Tournament, and other major titles I may have left out of this thought. If a game does not bring incentive to completing an objective, a majority of players will not participate for the sake of holding a base, or "winning". I believe that 90% of players that make up that majority, will not voice their opinion on a forum.
  10. Luciasar Luciasar Well-Known Member


    I like this idea of not having base "missions" like destroying the generator or taking out the guns being tied in a linear way to base capture. Instead, each individual action weakens the overall base integrity, making it a little less defendable as the systems fall. You could even lead attacks against objectives that harm the base ability to provide factional bonuses - sabotaging the resource extractor, for example, or disabling AA guns that are disrupting your airdrops.

    I don't like the idea of CTF points in bases though. I like the idea of having defensible locations be valuable on their own merit rather than being arbitrarily assigned to one faction when they are "taken", and then becoming the invincible troop fountains they are in most open world games. Why not have the base "alignment" be judged on who is in control of the defensive systems? Or even just forgo alignment altogether? That way you could have the space marines holding out to protect the AA in the center core of the facility, even as the outer fortifications and guns are manned by orks who hold of reinforcing rhinos and dropships trying to come to their aid.

Share This Page