Identifying Issues and Fixing Them: Basecamping

[PraetorDon 485]

This isn’t going to be a standard suggestion. This was written up before Vizii made his post, but after the community meeting on 5/23.

 

Recently, I’ve noticed the player count decreasing and more than a few people have stated that it’s due to basecamp. Whether this is true or not, I’m going to try to address the basecamp issue, come up with some solutions, and explain my method for identifying and solving problems that has served me well, both in dealing with issues when I was still active on the server, and in a professional environment.

 

With any project, first the scope needs to be identified. In this case, the scope would be eliminating basecamping. It is important that there are minimal changes to the scope once it is decided at the beginning of the project, to prevent scope creep.

Here’s where it gets a bit more difficult. When working a project, I, and others like to use something called the Iron Triangle, which I will show below. I will explain more about how this works below as well.

 

To maximize quality vs efficiency, it is usually agreed upon to focus on 2/3 sections for optimal quality. Generally, you pick two from of good, fast and cheap. You can have good and cheap, good and fast, or fast and cheap.

In this example, cost (cheap) is the effort of dev time that has to be put into something, time (fast) is the time it takes, and scope (good) is how well the issue is resolved overall pertaining to the original issue outlined in the initial scope.

 

 

I will be making some suggestions that fall under these sections:
 

Basecamping is now failRP by the opposing base being in render– fast + cheap

Pros: Easy to implement, easy to understand

Cons: Difficult to enforce, has been proven to not be popular with the community.

Overall Thoughts: This idea has been rejected numerous times, and I’m not a fan of it either. I mainly used this as an example.

 

Adding cover and terrain – good

Pros: Ultimately, this would probably be the best solution as far as the playerbase is concerned. Comprehensive and a permanent fix.

Cons: Notice how I only put one category? That’s because this is neither fast, nor cheap. The amount of testing that would need to go into adding terrain is large (time) and the effort Garnet would need to put into editing the map (cost) is quite extensive.

Overall Thoughts: While I like this idea, it only meets one of the criteria for ensuring quality on a project. Because of the large amount of time and cost this suggestion requires, this is not a viable suggestion currently. As an aside, I’ve heard that Garnet doesn’t like to do map edits unless he’s re-releasing the map.

 

Training new players on how to play – good + cheap

Pros: Gets the community involved, spreading out the load onto faction leaders/the community instead of management/Garnet. Comprehensive and improves the quality of leadership and factions, and therefore the server itself.

Cons: Involving more resources (people) increases the complexity, and if there isn’t key leadership being done, then this is doomed to fail. A long, ongoing process that will need to be consistently refined and improved upon.

Overall Thoughts: This is probably the most reasonable, and effective option for following the guidelines previously mentioned. As a bonus, it will show which leaders of factions deserve to lead, and which need to move on. This should be a country wide effort, i.e. US training US players, RU training RU players. While it’s great that RU is switching over to help US in war, that doesn’t really fix the long term problem. I’d personally pick this option. Management would need to work with faction leaders and each country in order to get some standards in place (tips, tricks, movement, loadouts, etc.)

 

Doing nothing – 0/3

Pros: I mean, I guess nothing has to be done, allowing resources to be diverted elsewhere.

Cons: Pretty much everything else. This isn’t helping the server.

Overall Thoughts: I don’t really have much to touch on here. Something is better than nothing when it comes to the basecamping issue. This is what is currently happening, to my knowledge. I attended the community meeting last weekend and didn’t hear anything otherwise, correct me if I’m wrong.

 

To conclude, I don’t think basecamping is the sole reason playercount is decreasing. Having not played much in the last two months, I can only hazard a guess on what the main issues are. Finals are occurring, college has been done for several weeks now and other school should be wrapping up. However, it seems to me that the same problems that were occurring when I was active, are still occurring from conversations I’ve had, and my own, undercover, observations. That’s not to say people haven’t been trying, I’ve seen some efforts made to improve the server, keep up the good work.

 

Thoughts and comments are appreciated as always.

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Praetor_Don

[Vlone 78]

If we refer back to the map before siberia, chakariha or whatever, basecamping was not an issue on either side. Both sides did it, and the player count was usually as high as 80+.

 

the only thing that  i see that can help US, is adding more terrain or cover between EMB and US base. and adding more terrain or cover between  the US base and SILO if it is a silo only war.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Vlone
Add on

[AwesomeAidan0221 694]

4 minutes ago, Vlone said:

If we refer back to the map before siberia, chakariha or whatever, basecamping was not an issue on either side. Both sides did it, and the player count was usually as high as 80+.

That is because to be able to base camp on chaharikar, you had to be really close to the enemies base which made it easier for them to over run any base campers. On Del;ta, there are so many places to head glitch, little to no cover for forces which are leaving base, and render distance is huge. No one complained about base camping on chaharikar because the map did accommodate base camp like this map does.  

[PraetorDon 485]

26 minutes ago, AwesomeAidan said:

That is because to be able to base camp on chaharikar, you had to be really close to the enemies base which made it easier for them to over run any base campers. On Del;ta, there are so many places to head glitch, little to no cover for forces which are leaving base, and render distance is huge. No one complained about base camping on chaharikar because the map did accommodate base camp like this map does.  

People certainly did complain about base-camping on Charharikar. You are correct about there being less counterplay on Delta than the previous map.

Having played on both sides on Delta, it is possible to get out of US base during an RU basecamp. It is however, far more difficult than it was on Charharikar. 

Is increasing fog a map edit? Although I think this will also be unpopular.

The simple fact of the matter is, there isn't much difference to dying right outside of base, and dying 40 steps closer to the objective, other than where you died. Dying sucks, if a new player can't get on obj to get kills, then it really doesn't matter where they die.

If I had to have my cake and eat it too I would: a) Have faction leaders and SOC come up with guidelines and tips to leaving the base successfully and other gameplay tips b) Add more terrain/fog .

 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Praetor_Don

[Bozee 202]

just add more fog lol,  lol trying to get people to come together on guidelines and rules is like agreeing on politics 

Edited May 31, 2020 by cbozee

[Coyotee 590]

The player count on 2016 desert was always was 80-MAX and the base camping was WAY worse but no one really mass complained like right now.

I dont understand why this has became such an issue to people, this has been around for ages and now all of a sudden everyone is going crazy (my guess is its because the past maps didnt have base camping that much so its new to alot of people), although i do have a one sided opinion since RU is 95% of the time not on the receiving end but i think this problem shouldnt be this blown out of proportion.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Coyotee

[Jared Cox 651]

To me I think it’s natural for RU to play in a basecamp style to win wars when you’re completely dominating US. Yes it’s pretty annoying from my perspective in US but that’s really all it is: just an annoyance. If it’s not breaking the rules I don’t really care what the plan of action is in war. If you want to basecamp the enemy team to completely dominate and dismantle the morale of the people you’re beating to a pulp, I think that’s a smart tactic.

I don’t think this is a huge issue that we need to “fix” but rather during war, find ways to somehow beat base camping, or simply not allow the enemy team to basecamp in the first place.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Jared Cox

[Flak 126]

22 minutes ago, Jared Cox said:

To me I think it’s natural for RU to play in a basecamp style to win wars when you’re completely dominating US. Yes it’s pretty annoying from my perspective in US but that’s really all it is: just an annoyance.

Not necessarily just an RU play style, US used to be able to do it too way back. both RU and US will basecamp as soon as they get the chance to as even on this map, i have still seen US basecamping during wars 

 

25 minutes ago, Jared Cox said:

I don’t think this is a huge issue that we need to “fix” but rather during war, find ways to somehow beat base camping

I love how you said this. I think the way to overcome this is really just adapting and learning where people usually play (for ex. coyote behind coyote rock) and learn how to counter their spot / play style while holding trainings so everyone knows how to flank around and be weary of these spots 

 

Also i’m going to just go ahead and say the same thing coyote did here, i am not on the receiving end of basecamping very often but i do think that this is blown out of proportion and US are just complaining instead of learning and adapting 

[PraetorDon 485]

6 hours ago, Coyotee said:

The player count on 2016 desert was always was 80-MAX and the base camping was WAY worse but no one really mass complained like right now.

I dont understand why this has became such an issue to people, this has been around for ages and now all of a sudden everyone is going crazy (my guess is its because the past maps didnt have base camping that much so its new to alot of people), although i do have a one sided opinion since RU is 95% of the time not on the receiving end but i think this problem shouldnt be this blown out of proportion.

 

4 hours ago, Jared Cox said:

To me I think it’s natural for RU to play in a basecamp style to win wars when you’re completely dominating US. Yes it’s pretty annoying from my perspective in US but that’s really all it is: just an annoyance. If it’s not breaking the rules I don’t really care what the plan of action is in war. If you want to basecamp the enemy team to completely dominate and dismantle the morale of the people you’re beating to a pulp, I think that’s a smart tactic.

I don’t think this is a huge issue that we need to “fix” but rather during war, find ways to somehow beat base camping, or simply not allow the enemy team to basecamp in the first place.

 

4 hours ago, Flak said:

Not necessarily just an RU play style, US used to be able to do it too way back. both RU and US will basecamp as soon as they get the chance to as even on this map, i have still seen US basecamping during wars 

 

I love how you said this. I think the way to overcome this is really just adapting and learning where people usually play (for ex. coyote behind coyote rock) and learn how to counter their spot / play style while holding trainings so everyone knows how to flank around and be weary of these spots 

 

Also i’m going to just go ahead and say the same thing coyote did here, i am not on the receiving end of basecamping very often but i do think that this is blown out of proportion and US are just complaining instead of learning and adapting 

So, the issue seems to be player skill then? So would you guys like to / like to see skilled players on both sides teaching newer players how to play the game?

[Toyto 79]

I had an idea that was similar to one Jim said one day. Make a cap zone around the US base that is considered a safe zone. While RU is allowed to be in this zone they are not allowed to shoot at or kill people (to prevent RU lowering everyone to 1 hp or something). This way if someone is within the zone they have 100% proof that it was base camp due to the capping banner. This way it's easy to identify basecamp and enforcement would be similar to crouch jumping which has proven to be effective. 

The counter argument to this is that "How is RU supposed to know who is in the cap zone or not. Well, there are two answers. Firstly there could be some sort of line (a perma propped rope or something) or a simple graphic  showing the rough border. The other would be if RU is too scared to kill someone close-ish to the base due to not knowing if it's basecamp isnt that good? It would mean people would be more willing to play closer to the objective rather than the entire map trying to encircle the US base. While I do agree that basecamping  is an effective tactic (while I don't find it fun to be on either side of) I think what would be more fun is wars that are closer and keep you on the edge of your seat. I'm thinking that a fix like this could be a step towards that.

This is just an idea though so let me know your opinions.

[Pencil 767]

26 minutes ago, Toyto said:

cap zone around the US base

I think if anything any solution that causes a whole "nono I was inside the line" argument is a bad idea, Coyote and really anyone who was here for the CSD 'valentines' event can attest to this, US would literally just sit on walls to bait basecamp warns and it would cause like 30 minute sits of uploading videos and discussing what was in base and what wasn't.

Also making a bigger zone causes this type of problem;

The reason why Charharikar was good for anti-basecamp was as other people stated, how quickly you can move forces to the outer hills to kill the campers cause of how close the hills were and how close the gates were, allowing people to quickly group up on one hill and disperse to their objectives. Delta as is already causes you to un-render the other exit that is being basecamped when you leave, meaning if you're trying to split forces to KH and Silo, you are already having to waste a lot of time and cover/check a larger area to make sure all basecampers are dead.

17 hours ago, PraetorDon said:

Basecamping is now failRP by the opposing base being in render

Honestly I kinda support this, Ethan had this rule in place for SSO even before I had been in it and it was honestly some of the most fun I've had in wars. It allowed for us to look at new places around the map to gain advantages and we had whole documents dedicated towards how to play on objective and the most crucial areas to hold. Now-a-days all SOC just look like a bunch of cod players running around like it's TDM Nuketown on an OBJ until it's clear then moving off to basecamp. I think a failrp warn is a bit excessive, even just making it more enticed for SOC to stay on OBJ or adding more flavorful outposts around objectives could make them more wanting to not run up to the enemy base and wait for people. Or even add mortars or a form of aerial combat to punish people who push too far or people who are out in the open on OBJ's (obviously to prevent aerial basecamp just make a rule that flying to close to the enemy base would be failrp cause of Anti-Air or some shit, or actually add anti-air)

 

[Toyto 79]

6 minutes ago, Pencil said:

30 minute sits of uploading videos and discussing what was in base and what wasn't.

The thing is though there isnt a discussion. If your in the zone there is a massive banner at the top of your screen so you are either in the cap zone or not.

[Pencil 767]

Just now, Toyto said:

in the cap zone or not.

Orsis shot flings your body 30 feet back, you death exploit and run into the zone and it pops up on your screen, etc. Anything using a cap-zone similar to the war system will more than likely provide false positives.

[Lark 63]

14 hours ago, Coyotee said:

The player count on 2016 desert was always was 80-MAX and the base camping was WAY worse but no one really mass complained like right now.

I dont understand why this has became such an issue to people, this has been around for ages and now all of a sudden everyone is going crazy (my guess is its because the past maps didnt have base camping that much so its new to alot of people), although i do have a one sided opinion since RU is 95% of the time not on the receiving end but i think this problem shouldnt be this blown out of proportion.

Because people had more skill back then lol

3 hours ago, Zachman said:

I dont think it's player skill

Here is an example that happened to me, I palyed nail gunner on us to balance it and i thought having 300 hp would be enough, i was heavily wrong as when I started to go to emb I got shot at by 3 snipers at once instantly killing me, player skill maybe a part of it but having 12 snipers locked onto you at once is also a problem 

 

you literally answered yourself, of course niggas gonna target you if youre on rpg
no one in us wants to see 1 rpg clear emb by themselves

[Lark 63]

3 minutes ago, Zachman said:

its an issued when you have 12 people, experienced ass people locked onto US base not letting people leave,

basecampers are easy to kill, nothing is wrong with basecamping its been like that for ages
but headglitching WHILE basecamping is an issue
niggas show 1 pixel of their head and just slay people who come out the base