Base Camping Issues Summer 2020

[Ugotty 5]

     Hello all, in game I go by Bismarck. Formally I was SMMC and 1LT in 1MD as Ugott Taiga and 2LT in GB as VIII Bismarck. I am creating this post because I have noticed in May 2020 as I came back to the server that the player count is lower than what it used to be and that US loses probably north of %90 of wars especially in peak time. That is all well and good because there are undeniably very skilled players on RU and that is hardly refutable, however, there is seldom a time where during war most US can make it to an objective without being killed shortly after they have left base. My goal is not to necessarily complain about unsportsmanlike conduct but rather to bring further attention to the issue so that maybe something can be done to where there is a satisfactory-medium between both sides making the server enjoyable and attractive to new and seasoned players. 

     I am calling attention to a problem that has been talked about countless times yet again, but I am going to add my own perception to the debate. As a player with a little over 800 hours on the server, I understand that it is fair game for RU to protect the objective they have captured by pushing up a little to intercept US forces, but with layout of the map it hardly allows US any cover from skilled RU snipers as they are trying to gain a foot hold in the war. The addition of new terrain has been discussed as costly and time consuming  but I believe that it should still be considered.

     As far as classes go, I am wondering if it would be fair to say that classes on both RU and US base enlisted should be re-optimized. Perhaps for US, the demolition class could be reintroduced as a shotgun class again. With marksman, however, keep the MK14 for it  is a decent starting weapon. As for RU, the base class demo and marksman need to be re-optimized. The shotgun on the RU demo could increase in ammo to 12, but the SKS for marksman needs more options for optics. Perhaps for both support classes, reintroduce the SMG again so that they can participate in obj defense. These changes are only to give both sides a step up to donator class/weapon users.

     Lastly, incorporate into DS/RFR the teaching against pushing up to enemy base and PTFO! It used to be a priciple taught that kills don't matter in obj war but following orders does. That needs to be more pertinent in training like it used to be and also announced in main DB's for both sides and have SOC factions respect that also. 

    That is about all I can say about this subject. I hope that you all will consider it seriously and fairly. I am a donator myself so I understand the advantages it can bring over others, but if we can make it to where we can eliminate the handicaps placed on base classes and base locations as well as geography then we can make the server fun for everyone. I see that if we make base classes too strong then that makes donator things pointless, but is it worth the cost of making the server unfair and not fun for others? Thank you.

[Ugotty 5]

I realize that my suggestion about Army demo is false bc of the breacher T1 so let me propose this. Add optics to the M60 and increase fire rate a little and same for the RU LMG class and/or switch the M60 out for the M249 again like it was in its peak and adjust the RU LMG to match it.

[PraetorDon 485]

The shotgun going to 11B has already been denied. Also I believe it's on the US Army Donor class.
 

 

Here's a comprehensive post on the basecamping issue, made by myself.
 

TL;DR The issue isn't basecamping, it's a player skill/training issue.

Also, 2GA rarely pushes up to the base, it's mainly RU SOC. That's how RU have operated in the past, SOC pushes up, 2GA holds the obj. US used to do the exact same thing, and probably still would if the situation was reversed.  It's a game, people are going to push every competitive advantage they can.

I've already made most of my points on that other thread, so I'll leave it at that.

 

As for the weapon re-balancing, both LMG's and DMR's are fairly weak. Fixing the 2GA marksmen rifle and the US demo LMG are things that definitely need to happen.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Praetor_Don

[Ozzy 1,992]

Welcome back Ugott and if I recall you had a baby girl back in 2018 so I hope she’s well.

You’ve been here long enough to know that should post with the correct format!! There’s been 2 or 3 posts with roughly similar content that have been posted within the last week or two. The basecamping issue is something that will undoubtedly be the hot topic in our meetings to come. See the schedule here:

For the other two, class balancing and prioritizing. I can assure you the 2GA shotgun needs no buffs and I’m actually in the process of writing up a macro shotgun nerf. It’s just been taking awhile as my workload increased and I want to make sure I get my numbers right. The RU base classes are actually in a good spot. I’ve played all four classes since the damage multiplier changes and they all contain weapons that pack plenty of firepower. The Army AR and M14 are both quality weapons but yes the M60 is poor. LMGs as a whole are poor right now. If you feel strongly about that I’d recommend you make a suggestion surrounding solely that. 

I agree with you on the training > war statement. Imo base officers aren’t doing enough to make sure training goes smooth. They’ve tried incentives and positive reinforcement but that hasn’t yielded long term results. They need to start handing punishments when DS/RFR’s fail to train.

[Ugotty 5]

I read your article and I agree %110. I was offering suggestions without talking about that issue. I agree that both sides do it and it is a problem that requires unanimous support to fix. SOC that don't listen to war lead and do whatever they want regardless is an issue that I lament personally for both sides. I believe war should be at the obj and not at the enemy's front door period.

As far as "correct format", Ozzy, I have been here a while but new to reviewing the forums so I apologize for that. If there is a link I can see how to properly do so please send it to me. Thanks bro!

[Lex_ 506]

This suggestion is redundant as it brings up other current and already denied suggestions, although I can agree that there is a clear issue making it rather important.

Here are things you bring up that I feel should happen, some ideas having been neglected:

• Objective wars: the center of a war should focus on and around an/the objective(s). While basecamping is an actual strategy in cutting off forces to an objective, it is not used as such.
• Proper weapon balancing: of all weapons, faction or from the store. I personally felt this portion to be rushed and guessed without real community feedback (we gave "its good" or "its bad" rather than "try this value as it..." and so on). I have no specifics off the top of my head as I don't currently play and would rather have discussion on suggestions from active players.
• Training. I disagree that the quiz system promotes more people to stay than it does cause problems. While it is rare that people fail the quiz in their attempts to be a nuisance, I also rarely see people return (granted, I haven't been on recently and this is basing it off experience back in early April and before). You shouldn't need an incentive to train people for your factions, DI/DS/RFR and officers both. If you want people to improve or to even stay, train them up.

How are those things possible?

For basecamping during objective wars, or well, in general, the idea is to get kills. It isn't to cut people off and it isn't being done strategically. People do it solely to get kills. To show strength and skill. Basecamping is NOT because of a skill gap (but there definitely seems to be a skill gap). Two opposing sides with two opposing objectives. One group wants to get kills because who cares about the objective, it's just Gmod. And the other only cares about the objective, likely playing solo without solid leadership (no offense US, but you need to fix that). Having played both sides when we swapped back to Delta, RU communicates a lot more in radio; outside of their TS channels, which is even better when you realize that RU SOC spend their times together in TS 90% of every war. US is entirely different, and while some US SOC chill in the Green Beret channel, there isn't much discussion in radio between the rest of their SOC and entry.

For weapon balancing, I personally feel that SMGs are too fast but at the same time too manageable, making them versatile for close to middle-high ranges. Marksman rifles don't have the best optics (specifically the 2GA SKS). The sniping meta is large but thats mostly from the massive open desert of the current map lacking good cover. Of course, that isn't from somebody who is active on the server anymore and it'd be better to get fresh and current opinions on gunplay.

The quiz system isn't leaving anytime soon so the best solution is to adapt to it. At the same time the quiz could be improved upon based on its questions and implementation without losing its original purpose: to get players trained enough to receive their whitelists, leaving all of the extra work up to entry factions (as it should). Changing the lack of training for recruiters and officers however, that is a complex problem. I know that people have tried adding incentives to training, they've also tried making it a requirement but nobody wants to be forced to do something on a video game. I think training needs to be reformed but the way I'd suggest doesn't work with the quiz system and isn't entirely written out yet.

 

I could go on and on, honestly. But my response is aimed towards the things you're addressing in your original post, so I'll keep it as such.

[Ugotty 5]

Your response is much appreciated and I agree on several of your points. As I mentioned, the base classes need reoptimizing to give enlisted a better chance when faced with incredibly skillful RU and also reoptimization for RU enlisted also. The map needs a lot more cover also like you said. There is nothing wrong with RU intercepting attacking forces but when it becomes just pushing up to get kills in an OBJECTIVE war then it becomes a problem making it a chore to set a toe out of base. As far as US leadership, I agree that it is lacking but I also see effort. US ARMY Popcorn has made good suggestions on how we can be more in touch and interactive with lower enlisted and has implemented such already. How ever redundant the topic becomes I believe that we need to keep this issue in everyone's mind so that it may be fixed.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Ugotty
Just adding that I am not just advocating for US but RU also.

[D_Rose 431]

Your suggestion has been Denied

Due to the map being changed as well as a rule being made for basecamping.
With the weapons optimization there has been other threads accepted for Balancing weapons which are going to be worked on.

The enlisted leaders have also been encouraged to teach enlisted to stay on objective.