Background Image

Making Defense Feel Impactful/rewarding

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

  1. Luciasar Luciasar Well-Known Member

    Well, why not NPCs instead of autocannons? They serve exactly the same role, fill out the armies, are more fun to kill and are more in line with the lore anyway (no AI). And if you get detected, they sound the alarm. There's your notification. I feel like using autocannons instead of NPCs would be a waste of potential. A squad of guardians or servitors would be just as sufficient as a base guarding mechanism.

    EDIT oops mixed up my thread. This is being discussed to death elsewhere. Point still stands, though.
  2. ah having autocannons does not mean that you cant have NPC guards

    but the difference is that if the guards alert the council if they see enemies then it is very hard to rush a base
    if the enemy army manage to get there unseen by players

    so i would like more if some big and bulky things would give the alert when they get destroyed to let the attackers an option to work tactical like: "kill all NPCs first and then take out the turrets and caputre the strategic points"
  3. Bishop520 Active Member

    I agree with the statements about not being able to spawn in a warzone or a fortress or something like that. But I also had the follwoing idea.

    Have two different kinds of "strongholds": the unalligned forts that are basically peices of terrain that can be garisoned and reinforced like some people have discussed here; but also have some points that have value to them concerning the war-effort like a communication's node that maybe reduces the cooldown to respawn at the squad-beakon placed by the leader, or a manufactorum, which reduces a cooldown time in which a player can drop/warp in a vehicle; or maybe any other sort of terminal.

    Assuming this goes, I can see some people asking "But how will we know where those "terrain forts" are? The Terminals are indicated on the map, but those ruins are just a peice of terrain." Well, why not involve the Warcouncil and guilds in it? They could actually inform the rest of the army which points and forts and ruins are held by friendlies. Would make things pretty cool.

    As for rewarding the defenders, if a group successfully defends anything, they should get some sort of commedations (don't remember how you spell that) that can, after the battle, be turned into requisition points and spent on wargear. Consecutive defensive victories will grant not only an increase in rank and maybe a title that has to do with defence, but also some sort of item, specifically for defending. This item can be traded in for a peice of a defensive wargear or a defensive upgrade, such as increace in armor, faster deployment of cover (assuming its a thing) and the like. Defending terminals yeilds an even greater increace in rank, commedations and defencive items. Maybe even, a consumable item can be given the defending squad leader that deploys a turret of some sort, for example.
    ThisHermitGuy likes this.
  4. this would make defending a fortress almost impossible
    why do we defend a fortress? cause it is under attack

    so first comes the attack and then the defenders will appear
    but if they cant spawn in that fortress they need to get there from outside while the enemy probable made it inside the fortress
    so the attackers will use the fortress to defend against the defenders

    sounds strange doesnt it?
    ThisHermitGuy likes this.
  5. Bishop520 Active Member

    Fair point. But I suppose, if the game is played tactically, an attacking force will be spotted boforehand and the fort will be reinforced in time.

    Another option I thought of: you always respawn at your ships, but then from it, can teleport to any of terminals your faction holds, except the ones where there is battle.
  6. Yes, I just hope we avoid the planetside meatgrinder. Where the base is taken but there are still dozens of people trapped in the spawn waiting to die. Or where they continually rush out again and again and again. I want losing a base to feel like a last stand, where the enemy is trying to kill me more than the generator that is 6ft behind me.
    Bishop520 likes this.
  7. Bishop520 Active Member

    I was thinking that respawn at a ship has no cooldown, but deployment takes time. Respawning at any terminal you control on the serface has a substantial cooldown and warping to a squad beakon can only be done from the ship, akin to deployment, but seeing that it instantly gets you to the battlefield, essentially, it will have an even longer cooldown. Plus the beackon is destructible and after it is destroyed, the cooldown for dropping it again starts, and its a long-ass cooldown. How about it?

  8. Seems reasonable enough. It would allow for coordinated strikes but would prevent people from spamming. Personally, I think that anything that reinforces the need to work together is a plus. This seems like one of those things.
    McKnuckles and Bishop520 like this.
  9. Here's the problem with PS2 defenses. You can drive an armored column right in without opposition if the guns aren't manned and there isn't enough firepower to properly defend the base. Assault forces are OP in PS2 because they have equal direct firepower. A base should not only have superior direct fire but indirect fire keeping advancing forces out of the lethal gun range. Anything that get within fire range needs to die quickly. Artillery fires need to come into play.. diversionary attacks to misdirect firepower, ect... It should be hard to crack through a base's fires zone. If you want defense to be rewarding then you have to have the firepower to slow fast attack. That means assault units must be very wary about their method of approach. You shouldn't be able to drive, fly or walk anything within the fire's zone without a proper siege line or solid tactics. There should be a siege line and assault forces would need coordination to get close. Breaching a defense line should force creativity and zerging should be useless unless you're Orks.
    Bishop520 and Whiskey like this.
  10. Whiskey Whiskey Subordinate

    No absolute invisibility classes and make sniping hard as hell. No instant kill hit scan sniper rifles, making sniping and sneaking based more on player skill than just hiding and getting easy kills, or hitting a button to be invisible and staying that way until you decide to instant melee kill some one.

    As far as base capture mechanics, I prefer a system that SWG used combined with the PS2 system.

    In SWG each class had to be present to capture enemy buildings. Well not every class but you needed 4 classes to capture a facility. So like your Commando had a job, your smuggler had a hob etc you had ot capture these different points and the 'specialist had to do their part while the rest of the team covered them.

    Combines that with the PS2 system in that there is no one point of capture, and shields hiding important stuff and I believe that would work.

    It forces the defender to try and guess then counter which point the attacker will hit first, and it forces both sides to use balanced teams.

    Make the cap point so you need an assault Marine for one (maybe a switch or interface up high only a jet packer can get to) The Chaplain has to consecrate a relic in order to release it influence on a switch, maybe your heavy weapons guys need to blow a door and finally your SL has to get in and input a sequence of codes. All these take time, and can be done simultaneously (think commando raid) or you slug it out to each point.

    Bigger bases, more points to capture, smaller bases maybe just a gate and a code to defeat.

    Not a perfect plan, but one I liked as it forces diversity and makes getting to the points and holding them a challenge.

    Grigdusher and Partisan like this.

Share This Page