A plea regarding bases, towers, and bunkers

[Huma]

Please please Sony for the love all that is holy please clear the areas around tactical structures. Bases shouldn't have rocks or trees within 50 meters of them let alone completely blocking wall turrets. Any commander worth anything would clear cover from around a tactical position especially if it limits LOS.
A tactical structure is intended to dominate the surrounding area and thusly should be hard to approach undetected.

[Bags]

How the hell are we supposed to assault a base with no cover? Fun gameplay > realism every damn time.

Can we PLEASE put some thoughts into our ideas before posting them?

[exLupo]

Ground transports!

[Senyu]

Fine as is

[Aractain]

Add lots more rocks, trees and other cover. Maybe some roads and kill zones too. Maybe not trees overhanging walls... but cover yes.


Also Bags' avatar makes me feel uppity.

[Huma]

You forget that there are going to be a much larger number of troops on the field. The defenders are going to be hard pressed keeping attackers at bay as it is. Not to mention the built in counters to walls with armor, air, snipers, cloakers, and old fashioned suppressive fire. Besides these structures are going to be extremely important in that they will make it easier to keep adjacent hexes from being captured as easily. Purposely retarding their intended purpose by slapping trees in front of turrets is a horrible idea. Besides it's not like there isn't going to be a huge armor/air brawl that'll clear up everything before everyone switches to grunt to mop up.

[Erendil]

How the hell are we supposed to assault a base with no cover? Fun gameplay > realism every damn time.

Can we PLEASE put some thoughts into our ideas before posting them?

Two words: Ground transport.

And he never asked for no cover at all. Just that the immediate area around bases be cleared of natural obstacles like trees and boulders. And I agree with the OP. At least to some extent re: trees. In PS1 there are a few bases that have trees growing just a few feet away from a wall turret. Take Kaang for example, There's a grove of trees in the NW corner that makes the NW wall turret all but worthless. Talk about stupid base planning....

RE: other cover, I'm okay with boulders being strewn about, and I'm hoping/expecting there will be trenches, bunkers, pill boxes, etc present in the areas around bases that infantry can use to find cover.


In short, nerf da treez!

[Jennyboo]

Agreed fine as is, ground troops get cover also it slows the flow of ground vehicles.

[FriendlyFire]

I am fine with less trees, in favor of better lay outs for attack/defense. Some bases should favor tactics more than others.

[Sovereign]

Because we already know that bases will have the exact same layout as before... :rolleyes:

Ergo we can expect improvements in base defenses to come in some form or another. Personally I hope they have more depth to bases would like other frameworks of cover with various means besides just crates.

Lastly cover like trees should be destroyable and be considered light cover.

[Hamma]

How the hell are we supposed to assault a base with no cover? Fun gameplay > realism every damn time.

Can we PLEASE put some thoughts into our ideas before posting them?

Every idea is valid even if you don't agree with them.

But I am going to agree it is fine as is - clearing it out wouldn't be much fun.

[opticalshadow]

keep it the way it is. aside from jsut regualr troop cover, as an dedicated infil for 8 years now i cant tell you how useful these peices of cover can be for breaking into bases. without them anyone with DV can pretty much spot me with no chance at all for doing anything.

here i can perch on top, or behind, i can even lead thoughtless soldiers around a rock or tree to kill the wounded infil, just for a hidden explosive to end their life.

maybe move a turret thats blocked by trees a bit, but dont get rid of the trees.

[Heaven]

I totally disagree, things like trees and rocks give the game a tactical side to assault the bases and towers, we would be sitting ducks if there was no cover for troops, but it would be a snipers heaven ha, cover in PS2 is a must and everyone knows it.

[Malorn]

As many others have said, cover is important and gives some natural tactics to base assault that will differ per-base. I really don't want every base assault to be repetitive.

I know some folks have a hardon for ground transports but stripping cover is not the way. If anything that cover will serve you better, protecting your transport from the engineers that would otherwise ruin it.

Gameplay has to come first.

[CutterJohn]

Cover is fine, but I do see his point. Some turrets had way too much obstruction.

[FIREk]

I think Huma is referring to some of PlanetSide's structure where a tree is actually slapped smack in front of a turret, which is indeed ridiculous.

On the other hand, I'm under the impression that everyone else (the "It's fine" people;)) thinks that he wants all bases, towers, outposts and bunkers to have no rocks, trees or any cover at all within those "realistic" 50 meters, which in turn would be just as ridiculous in terms of gameplay. ;)

You can't expect the enemy to come rolling with ground transport all the time, so no cover = bad, but I don't think no cover was the point.

On the other hand, even if anyone thinks no cover is fine, you can't expect engagements to be that much bigger than in PS1 - there will be more contestable territory, so the fighting will likely be bigger (more people), but proportionally spread out across an actual "front line".

[Huma]

I think Huma is referring to some of PlanetSide's structure where a tree is actually slapped smack in front of a turret, which is indeed ridiculous.

On the other hand, I'm under the impression that everyone else (the "It's fine" people;)) thinks that he wants all bases, towers, outposts and bunkers to have no rocks, trees or any cover at all within those "realistic" 50 meters, which in turn would be just as ridiculous in terms of gameplay. ;)

You can't expect the enemy to come rolling with ground transport all the time, so no cover = bad, but I don't think no cover was the point.

On the other hand, even if anyone thinks no cover is fine, you can't expect engagements to be that much bigger than in PS1 - there will be more contestable territory, so the fighting will likely be bigger (more people), but proportionally spread out across an actual "front line".

Well according to the devs facilities, towers, and bunkers will exert their own influence and will be able to capture adjacent hexes on their own. At the same time their very presence will also increase the capture times on those adjacent hexes. This gives these structures a very high importance in both offensive and defensive strategies.
I think the front line will BR spread out a little bit but your still going to see the Zerg butting their heads against the structures the most. So in essence these structures will literally dominate the areas around them and will be the focal point of battles.
I'm willing to concede that there should be some cover but turrets shouldn't be blocked up. Besides your also forgetting that engineers are going to be getting a lot more "toys". I'm sure they will have the capability to deploy sufficient cover for the grunts

[Malorn]

So what you're really asking is that turrets have good line of sight and don't have significant chunks of their field of vision blocked by a tree.

[opticalshadow]

So what you're really asking is that turrets have good line of sight and don't have significant chunks of their field of vision blocked by a tree.

i would guess that would be a bit better to say then the previous statement. i mean noone builds a gun that cant work.

and while i think thats reasonable, to just totally remove cover objects within a bases walls would do more bad then good.

[Crator]

No one yet knows if they will have evolving/destructable environments. At least I've not heard as much yet. If they do, I would suspect you could clear the obstructions from locations for your purposes.

[opticalshadow]

No one yet knows if they will have evolving/destructable environments. At least I've not heard as much yet. If they do, I would suspect you could clear the obstructions from locations for your purposes.

i wouldnt think they would. given the amount of actual firearms in any given area, and the fact its not likly to be abandoned for an extreamly long time, you would either onl have trees and rocks for about 10 minutes or they would just start popping up out of the blue.


i think they said something about some thing about some destroyable placeables like barrels (that could ahve been a suggestion) but id really really doubt we can mow down a tree.

[Peacemaker]

Half agree. Needs to be less cover. Approaching an enemy base should be dangerous. not "hazardous". There was too much cover in PS and it didn't make sence. The walls were worthless because people on the ground often had the advantage to those on the walls, the cover gave them too many attack direction options, while if you were on the wall you were very limited.

[Sovereign]

The walls were worthless because people on the ground often had the advantage to those on the walls, the cover gave them too many attack direction options, while if you were on the wall you were very limited.

This to me is the epitome of faulty base features that needs the reform, its as if the walls were no more defensive then picket fences. Bases like castles are meant to employ walls as consequential part of base defense and the fact that most people in last game simply avoided their use as if it were the plaque warrants the needed change.

Very good point made there. :)

[Bags]

Half agree. Needs to be less cover. Approaching an enemy base should be dangerous. not "hazardous". There was too much cover in PS and it didn't make sence. The walls were worthless because people on the ground often had the advantage to those on the walls, the cover gave them too many attack direction options, while if you were on the wall you were very limited.

It is already extremely dangerous to attack an enemy base. I would choose to defend over attack 100 out of 100 times. Grenades are so much more effective against attackers than defenders, and the fact that you can "attack from too many directions" (which isn't true since you can attack from any part of the wall) is moot when the enemy has radar and grenades.

The only thing I agree with in this thread is that there shouldn't be trees five feet in front of wall turrets.

[nathanebht]

They base defenders should have the advantage of a cleared killing ground. You should need a significant advantage in numbers to take a base. I don't think a cleared killing ground will make the PS2 un-fun. It will just help prevent mindless zerg rushes.

[tjmonk15]

While i have heard/seen people say fun > realism, making things fair from an offensive vs. defensive position means leaning towards realism.

In real life, "bases" (read castles, bases, outposts, forward positions, etc.) always favor the defensive. And it should be the same in PS2. Favor the defenders.

Go log in PS1 and tell me people actually stick around to defend a base vs. just falling back and trying to protect the next base. Defenders need a chance to win. in PS1, attackers always win, its just a matter of when.

Defenders should have a chance to win, ie. push out the invaders and secure their location. and then push forward. In PS1, defenders just stuck around for a little bit to get some bexp then fell back once they were dying too much. They never really had a chance to hold their base (Not once a sizable force decided to attack, no matter how large the defending force.)

An attacking force should 100% be fighting an up hill battle. This fact (in game) will do nothing besides help the persistence mechanic of Planet-Side. A player knows if he helped capture a base, more than likely will still be on his side tomorrow (or any time in the future, if this aspect is honored)

-Monk

[Bags]

While i have heard/seen people say fun > realism, making things fair from an offensive vs. defensive position means leaning towards realism.

In real life, "bases" (read castles, bases, outposts, forward positions, etc.) always favor the defensive. And it should be the same in PS2. Favor the defenders.

Go log in PS1 and tell me people actually stick around to defend a base vs. just falling back and trying to protect the next base. Defenders need a chance to win. in PS1, attackers always win, its just a matter of when.

Defenders should have a chance to win, ie. push out the invaders and secure their location. and then push forward. In PS1, defenders just stuck around for a little bit to get some bexp then fell back once they were dying too much. They never really had a chance to hold their base (Not once a sizable force decided to attack, no matter how large the defending force.)

An attacking force should 100% be fighting an up hill battle. This fact (in game) will do nothing besides help the persistence mechanic of Planet-Side. A player knows if he helped capture a base, more than likely will still be on his side tomorrow (or any time in the future, if this aspect is honored)

-Monk

Given equal pops the defenders can easily win. It's only a matter of "when not if" when they attackers outpop. And if you outpop your enemy you should win.

And what the hell are you talking about? Nobody falls back from "dying too much" on defense. The people attacking are the ones dying too much.

Attacking is an uphill battle in ps1.


quick question, do any of you guys actually play planetside?

[exLupo]

Given equal pops the defenders can easily win.

Word. 3 day long Irkalla and Dagda fights say hello.

[Bags]

miss read

[MasterChief096]

You can't even take a base in which both empires have 50% pop on a continent. The attackers (nowadays) have to outpop the defenders by at least 20% to see any real advantage. To me thats enough favoring of the defenders. And I'm not sure what that one guy was worrying about, but I never see an entire empire start dying too much on defense and then just go fall back to the next base to wait for the attackers. 99% of the time we hold the CC, tubes, and gen till the last man. You don't wan to make base defenses too OP. In real life base defenses can be overpowered, because in real life all we care about is winning. In PlanetSide there needs to be balance. We can't just have bases with uber killing fields and defensives so that the attacker needs 40% more pop to be able to have any hope of getting past the defenses.

[opticalshadow]

This to me is the epitome of faulty base features that needs the reform, its as if the walls were no more defensive then picket fences. Bases like castles are meant to employ walls as consequential part of base defense and the fact that most people in last game simply avoided their use as if it were the plaque warrants the needed change.

Very good point made there. :)

actually the walls worked perfectly. walls do one thing, prevent passing thats it. the walls did this, it funneld players to either the main or secondary gate or the back door. unless you were in a place (or a vs max) you had to do this.

im not sure how you see the walls failed to do their job. walls are not there to provide farther defence. you can add fortifacations to the walls to allow infantry cover up there, but thats not the wall, thats a sprate parts, its why castle walls have those fortifacations.

[exLupo]

im not sure how you see the walls failed to do their job

It's more an issue of what you're defending against. Castles, wagon circles, electric fences, whatever. The threat is always on the same plane as the installation. PS quickly evolved to have a fully horizontal and vertical threat but PS bases were designed from a horizontal, castle mindset.

Inherent to the design of modern military structures is a non-physical dome defense to protect against aerial threats. Really, with modern weapons, thick walls don't mean a whole lot. In PS, the walls were made indestructible while the aerial defenses were reduced to annoyances. An inversion of current military practice. As such, bailers and gal drops became common to circumvent medieval defensive strategy.

Ultimately, walls did their job and yet didn't. PlanetSide's Maginot Line. The enemy simply went around then and do now. The walls were there to provide defensive structures that the enemy couldn't pass and, for a time, did it well but, now, does it far less effectively.

[FriendlyFire]

I agree that the bases should have the clear defensive advantage but the attacking players should be able to employ tactics to gain an advantage as well. Maybe PS2 bases could have a "deploy-able" style system for cover. Cover that requires player actions to create would be far more interesting than a bunch of random trees and rocks.

[Atuday]

I'm with op on this. Some of the bases had trees way too close and most people who have played at those bases know this. PLEASE think very carefully the placement of objects around buildings this time because it has a huge effect on game play.