Concerned about facility level design

[Nick]

As you all know, in Planetside 1, fighting facilities were a massive part of the game. I really appreciate all the work that is going into Planetside 2 by SOE to make the game more spread out and fun for everyone. However, I'm a bit concerned from the video footage and statements made by developers on Planetside 2 facilities.

In Planetside 1, you could easily hold a base against greater odds using good tactics and strategy. However, from what we've seen of Planetside 2, it seems like the base is more spread out and open. There's no more hellish chokepoints where back and forth "cluster" battles happen. This eliminates many opportunities to hold ground, and I'm afraid that sheer numbers will be more important than before. Yes, there are choke points. However, there are many ways to easily circumvent them (like walking around the one building instead of funneling through like when Higby got TK'ed).

Obviously, some of the stuff we've seen is really nice out of facilities, but please bring back the underground corridors and narrow hallways below the bases and courtyards in addition to what is already in place.

The control console is much too exposed, despite there being shield generators. I realize this is an AMP Station but I hope we get to see these underground and more of a "last stand" area like in Planetside 1. Speaking of the generators, that artificial shield generator mechanic seems kind of stupid. Oh sorry, your 600 man army can't get in this room because there's a door with a shield blocking it. Lame.

Please no "wait for Beta" routine either, by then most of the design decisions are set in stone. It's in alpha and we've seen the game, so being negative at this point will mean more positive later on (and fun factor).

[NCLynx]

We'll have to see what they're all like during beta. I think it's been said that we take bases chunk by chunk with a sort of check point ish feel. It depends on the base, and where that base is too though.

I'm sure it worries a lot of us but from the sound of it there will be a decent amount of choke points for the attackers once things start pushing towards the spawn and the most high priority sections of a base.

[Nick]

We'll have to see what they're all like during beta. I think it's been said that we take bases chunk by chunk with a sort of check point ish feel. It depends on the base, and where that base is too though.

I'm sure it worries a lot of us but from the sound of it there will be a decent amount of choke points for the attackers once things start pushing towards the spawn and the most high priority sections of a base.

Which reminds me of what I forgot in my first post, do we really need more BF3 copy/paste? I don't want to have artificial objectives in a base defense or attack. Great, it tells the newbies what to do. Stop overkilling it. Let the players create their own battle: devs are there to give us the playground. I don't want to play Planetside 2: Conquest Mode. Missions are fine, but we don't need "direction" on how to defend and attack a base. It works and is already fun.

[cellinaire]

I believe that this new 'mission' system is mainly for commander's sake. I think we can choose to not use this feature if we so desire. Well, we will see about it, though.

[Nick]

I believe that this new 'mission' system is mainly for commander's sake. I think we can choose to not use this feature if we so desire. Well, we will see about it, though.

The way Higby made it sound was that each base has predetermined objectives to 'win'. Different phases of the fight, if you will. If you get unlucky on a Shield Generator defuse, you might be boned for the rest of the fight. Engineers might even be able to repair the Shield Generators, but you know how defenses can collapse even if the Generator falls for a minute or two in Planetside 1.

So blowing up Shield Generators: copy and paste from Search and Destroy (CoD)/Rush (BF).

Capturing areas of base: copy and paste from Conquest (BF).

I dunno, I guess I'm just pessimistic. I wouldn't mind this stuff all so much if we just had a Control Console that's in a position that is very defensible underground at the bottom of the base with narrow corridors you can use as choke points.

Higby, this is why map design in Starcraft is so important to make the natural expansions have chokes reasonably tight/narrow. So you can use defensive things like Bunkers, Force Fields, Spine Crawlers, etc. Without that ability to defend, all-ining is much more prevalent (or in the case of Planetside - zerging).

Really random thoughts as I don't know where to focus my concern, and it's very hard to with still so little information on the game. Anyone else feel the same way?

[NCLynx]

The way Higby made it sound was that each base has predetermined objectives to 'win'. Different phases of the fight, if you will. If you get unlucky on a Shield Generator defuse, you might be boned for the rest of the fight. Engineers might even be able to repair the Shield Generators, but you know how defenses can collapse even if the Generator falls for a minute or two in Planetside 1.

From the way I saw it sounded pretty similar to your standard base cap in the original. Take the CY first of course, start pushing in take the lobby, move down take down tubes and then hack & hold. OR you had the option to go through the back door and do a gen drop OR take down tubes or both.

To me it sounded like there were certainly objectives but there's still as many options and ways to go about completing said objectives as there always was.

[CutterJohn]

Why does a small number of people deserve a huge defensive advantage?

[Death2All]

Personally, I found the base designs in PS1 hellish.

They were far too compact and claustrophobic. It was irritating as hell to attack a base. I was really happy to see the new wide open base design. It's less about spamming and more about using cover effectively.

I'm sure that there are smaller areas, but I really hope nothing as severe as it was in PS1.

[Rivenshield]

I share OP's concerns, but I'm more in wait-and-see mode.

*My* only worry is if the bases are so goddam huge, can you see and hear what's going on at the opposite end of the base...? In PS1 you'd spawn, run for ten-fifteen seconds, and possibly die in the stairwell. Here you might run around for a minute or two, unable to see what's going on, desperate to go to the right place and help, and POW! That's not fun.

[kadrin]

Why does a small number of people deserve a huge defensive advantage?

Well, considering these are bases that are designed around the idea that they will be attacked, and therefore need to be defended, you'd design them to give the defenders as much as an advantage as possible and the attackers as much as a disadvantage as possible. It's common sense and it applies in the real world, if anyone is ever expecting that they could be attacked they prepare their position or base accordingly. It's why castles and forts exist in the first place, it's why trenches and bunkers are used, and why they usually clear the land around them to create "kill zones".

Heck, in reality, for an assault to be considered possible the attacker must have at least 3-1 odds, or a severe technological edge.

The real question is, why would you design a defensive position (such as a base) that could be taken easily? Why not just leave everything out in the open?

[Warborn]

Having a few easily-defended choke points meant that an effective base defense could drag the fight on for many hours. Having a meatgrinder fight over the same base where you spawn and die in under a minute is not fun. Bases which are more open and don't have easy choke points means fewer wars of attrition. Which means more fun.

[sylphaen]

I am not worried.

When capturing a large base, the more the attackers move towards the center, the more resistance will be met since there will be a concentration of defense.

I actually think that will we have base fights that gradually get more intense and finish in a grand finale at the center (or main capture objective of the base, whatever).

[SurgeonX]

For me there's two distinct phases to the base fights.
External and internal.

The extrenal fights, pushing up to the base and eventually capturing the CY were, generally, amazing.

The internal base fights, for me, were the worst thing about PlanetSide.
As DeeTwoEh says above, they were too cramped and claustrophobic.
And it looks like the dev team are trying to address that.

[CutterJohn]

The real question is, why would you design a defensive position (such as a base) that could be taken easily? Why not just leave everything out in the open?

Largely because its a game about taking territory. The bases need to be able to be taken. If you made it so the attackers needed 3 for every 1 defender, nothing would ever get taken. It'd be like one of those 24/7 2fort instant respawn servers. Nearly impossible to get anything accomplished because the defense is too strong.

Plus the RL offenses advantage of being able to blow holes in stuff, or just level the place if its too much effort, is nonexistent.

So, why would you design it that way? For gameplay, of course.

[Figment]

From a gameplay perspective? Because of the challenge for both sides. Because not every group will be of equal size. Because a fight needs to be dragged out to be called a fight and not a walk over. Because of logistics. Because it makes sense. Because sieging and finding a weakness in an enemy defense and exploit it is fun by being both mentally and physically challenging.


Ask yourself if people liked fighting over Bio Labs or Tech Plants more and why? Both from an offensive and defensive perspective. Was the easier to take base considered more valuable, more achievement, more prestigious, more fun to get, prefered to get through the easiest way?

[Kipper]

My impression so far is that PS2 bases will all be different, in the video - we saw one of them, and we didn't really see much of that. I expect different facilities - even facilities of the same 'type' might have different layouts. One might be half buried in a mountain, one might be behind high walls, one might have tunnel access, etc.

I also got the impression that it won't be a case of doing everything the same way either - brute force to take the shields down might give the defenders time to rally and prepare, a small squad infiltration to take them down might lead to a more 'surprise' attack, and diversionary 'open field' combat to draw defensive units away from the real objective etc all sound possible.

I think we should wait to see/hear more about base capture mechanics and specifics.

[Knocky]

Largely because its a game about taking territory. The bases need to be able to be taken. If you made it so the attackers needed 3 for every 1 defender, nothing would ever get taken. It'd be like one of those 24/7 2fort instant respawn servers. Nearly impossible to get anything accomplished because the defense is too strong.

Plus the RL offenses advantage of being able to blow holes in stuff, or just level the place if its too much effort, is nonexistent.

So, why would you design it that way? For gameplay, of course.


MOST territory is controlled by small/large outposts. There are few massive complexes on the map.

Personally I am glad to see that apparently the massive bases are designed to force tanks to stay out. We will have to see how well a plane can do inside the barriers. And yeah....for the most part defenders will always have the advantage as long as they can spawn inside the area they are defending. If they can't spawn there...then they are screwed since we will have the outside secure.

[Pozidriv]

The thing about this thread that brings a smile to my face is how opposite this discussion is compared to Mordor (UK). Most of Mordor despise the map "Metro" in BF3, because it's a massive chokepoint full of RPG / grenade and USAS frags spam and yet here we have the opposite :D.

Do people really want indoor fighting to devolve into a 60+ player spam fest of screen shaking gobbledigook? The added verticality that was apparent in the GDC videos look extremely promising.

[kadrin]

Largely because its a game about taking territory. The bases need to be able to be taken. If you made it so the attackers needed 3 for every 1 defender, nothing would ever get taken. It'd be like one of those 24/7 2fort instant respawn servers. Nearly impossible to get anything accomplished because the defense is too strong.

Plus the RL offenses advantage of being able to blow holes in stuff, or just level the place if its too much effort, is nonexistent.

So, why would you design it that way? For gameplay, of course.

Hopefully I didn't come off as advocating ridiculous bases, I was just citing how this works in reality with the need for 3-1 odds and such, I completely understand the need for balance, being able to actually capture a base and progress rather than get stalemates all over.

But base defenses still need to be at least somewhat extensive, make a decent fight out of them, it's not fun if they're completely impregnable but it's also not fun if they're just walks in the park.

You also bring up an excellent point about not being able to just blow holes or level places, but looking at the map and how everything is currently connected, it seems you can also cutoff sections. This seems to suggest that areas that aren't connected will have less resources or energy or whatever they're implementing, which would be absolutely fantastic for base assaults. Base too hard to take? Encircle it, cut it off from the supply lines, maybe now they can't get MAXs or tanks from the base.

[Graywolves]

A base that can't be defended for more than 10 minutes when you're heavily outpopped means possibly an entire empire of players not having fun.

[Skitrel]

As you all know, in Planetside 1, fighting facilities were a massive part of the game. I really appreciate all the work that is going into Planetside 2 by SOE to make the game more spread out and fun for everyone. However, I'm a bit concerned from the video footage and statements made by developers on Planetside 2 facilities.

In Planetside 1, you could easily hold a base against greater odds using good tactics and strategy. However, from what we've seen of Planetside 2, it seems like the base is more spread out and open. There's no more hellish chokepoints where back and forth "cluster" battles happen. This eliminates many opportunities to hold ground, and I'm afraid that sheer numbers will be more important than before. Yes, there are choke points. However, there are many ways to easily circumvent them (like walking around the one building instead of funneling through like when Higby got TK'ed).

Obviously, some of the stuff we've seen is really nice out of facilities, but please bring back the underground corridors and narrow hallways below the bases and courtyards in addition to what is already in place.

The control console is much too exposed, despite there being shield generators. I realize this is an AMP Station but I hope we get to see these underground and more of a "last stand" area like in Planetside 1. Speaking of the generators, that artificial shield generator mechanic seems kind of stupid. Oh sorry, your 600 man army can't get in this room because there's a door with a shield blocking it. Lame.

Please no "wait for Beta" routine either, by then most of the design decisions are set in stone. It's in alpha and we've seen the game, so being negative at this point will mean more positive later on (and fun factor).

This would be a poor decision on part of the devs. People today don't really enjoy a clusterfuck, and that's what chokepoints are. Op Metro springs to mind, the most controversial map in BF3. The main reason it's played is because of the extreme speed you can boost your stats on it. While some people enjoy a clusterfuck to others it's incredibly boring and repetitive. It's always the same.

[Kipper]

Defenders should always have an advantage over attackers - the fight is on THEIR ground, they have walls and time to prep - and spawn tubes right inside their facility. Attackers should always expect a hard, but not impossible fight to get to them.

Attackers will be able to bring their galaxies along to spawn reinforcements which means that defenders won't stop the onslaught unless they sally out, or call in their own reinforcements to take out these positions - thus if they have to leave the base to take out the spawns, they'll be leaving gaps... (or if its reinforcements, they'll be leaving gaps elsewhere).

It's (I hope) going to be a massive game of FPS chess where a battle for a facility isn't just a battle for a facility that's happening in isolation, its affecting the rest of the world. How to stop the attack? Counter attack the attackers either at your base or at one of theirs. How to improve your attack chances? Feint an attack on a less important outpost and try to split the enemy. So many options...

[Higby]

The level design shown at GDC, specifically the amp station isn't close to final.

1) the capture mechanic shown is nothing like the final capture mechanic. There won't be a single capture terminal, there will be a more distributed gameplay where each team has to attack and hold control nodes to maintain influence on the facility. We didn't have any of that stuff on display at GDC, but you'll get to play it in beta and we'll be adjusting based on feedback there.

2) the layout itself will be adjusted quite a bit to support the capture points on the map and further adjusted based on your feedback and metrics gathered during beta.

[Aurmanite]

The level design shown at GDC, specifically the amp station isn't close to final.

1) the capture mechanic shown is nothing like the final capture mechanic. There won't be a single capture terminal, there will be a more distributed gameplay where each team has to attack and hold control nodes to maintain influence on the facility. We didn't have any of that stuff on display at GDC, but you'll get to play it in beta and we'll be adjusting based on feedback there.

2) the layout itself will be adjusted quite a bit to support the capture points on the map and further adjusted based on your feedback and metrics gathered during beta.

Having some forum postage for lunch?

From the tiny amount we've seen, the facilities look fantastic. They look like they have been designed by people who make shooters, something that was absent from the original.

There are several spots I noticed when I watched you playing that made me think "aah yeah, I know exactly how I'm going to go about killing people in that area."

[ShowNoMercy]

A couple points guys,

I believe the only base we saw them fighting in was an amp station. Even in PS1 amp stations were GOD AWFUL for defending. I would be interested to see how an interlink facility or dropship center look considering that they were stronghold bases in PS1.

Bases with strong choke points require less coordination on the part of defenders. If in an interlink for instance, the BD gets breached. Unless the attackers are coordinated, once in the BD the attackers spread out. A portion feel a need to attack the tubes, some the CC, and some the GEN. This gives defenders an opportunity to patch the breach and clean out ones that go through.

An amp station is much harder to defend, but with coordinated pushes, defenders can push up and shore up defenses in the CC. The same argument is applicable for the gen in bio labs. These facilities are much harder to defend but not impossible. Besides, if all bases were equally difficult to take, the offensive line would move in a uniform fashion and fun Bastogne situations would never come about.

So while the concern may be that "no choke points remove defense strategy", I would argue "not necessarily" or "not the case". We don't know what all the base layouts will be and there will be secondary targets which do not appear to be uniform in layout like towers currently are. Finally, even if there are less effective choke points or more of them present it will just add more depth to strategy and opportunity to flank people IMO.

[UnknownDT]

The level design shown at GDC, specifically the amp station isn't close to final.

1) the capture mechanic shown is nothing like the final capture mechanic. There won't be a single capture terminal, there will be a more distributed gameplay where each team has to attack and hold control nodes to maintain influence on the facility. We didn't have any of that stuff on display at GDC, but you'll get to play it in beta and we'll be adjusting based on feedback there.

2) the layout itself will be adjusted quite a bit to support the capture points on the map and further adjusted based on your feedback and metrics gathered during beta.

Just you typing the word beta is exciting. lmao

[kaffis]

I loved the variety and openness on display.

I liked that there were lots of interesting cover points for both offense and defense that looked like they belonged where they were and served some purpose instead of in a storage room and were only left strewn about in a gross display of poor base security (giving all the invading forces cover!).

I liked how there were sections that struck a balance between the openness of a courtyard (making light assault able to reach interesting vantage/cover points, and introducing verticality into the mix, along with upper story balconies or windows to defend from) and the interior of a base (with spaces and obstacles tight enough to preclude vehicle participation).

It looked like a very exciting fight, and one that would allow for lots of flanking and attempting to cover broad areas rather than zeroing your crosshair in at head/chest level on the choke point.

The infantry fighting got me 30 times more excited than the vehicle and air fighting.

[Raymac]

The little bit we've seen so far, (and it has only been a little bit) the base design is leaps and bounds better than the Planetside 1 bases. Factor in the tweaking that Higby just mentioned and we are going to have much more fun than the stairwell clusterf*cks that dominated Planetside 1.

[Coreldan]

Have to chime in that I think the corridors and staircases (+third person view) were horrible things in PS1.

[megamold]

The control console is much too exposed, despite there being shield generators.

where did u see a control console?
i watched the gdc demo 3 times and didnt see one

and in ps1 there were several points in a base to, the gen, vehicle pad, spawn room, control console

sure there will be more but thats a good thing imho
i dont think they would use nonsense capture point ( hallway x or z ) but build the points on base features that would be defendend in any case

whatever they do, i think the bases in general will be much better

[ThirdCross]

where did u see a control console?
i watched the gdc demo 3 times and didnt see one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ikSRA46-Ug8#t=129s