I'm going to miss the old base fights

[Zenben]

While I do like how the game is looking, I'm really going to miss the pushes down stairs and through hallways that PS1 had. Even within bases, you had clearly defined lines of fighting. Zurvan just looks so open compared to the old bases.

The way it looks for PS2, at least with the base we've been seeing, it seems like base fights will just end up being localized BF3 conquest matches. Hopefully other base types will have a centralized capture point that your team must push through chokes to get at.

[The Kush]

One can only hope

[Coreldan]

I can't say I'll really miss them. Base design for the most part in PS was horrible. Yay for fighting huge bottlenecks in stairs and corridors.

[Bags]

I am going to miss the laggy, skilless AOE spam fests too!

[SKYeXile]

i doubt it, because of the amount of players they plan to have in PS2 they want to spread them out, a fight of 400 v 400 in stairwell fight would be chaotic...especially with the lower TTK in this game.

[Zenben]

I can't say I'll really miss them. Base design for the most part in PS was horrible. Yay for fighting huge bottlenecks in stairs and corridors.

I actually loved the bottlenecks. I remember the stress of being one of the last few people in the room outside the CC, being low on ammo, and you could hear the fighting in the hall outside. You knew it was probably only seconds before a couple enemy MAXes push through the door and mow your team down, and you're praying the spawn tubes stay up so you'll be able to come back at them and have one last chance of clearing them out from behind.

[Zenben]

i doubt it, because of the amount of players they plan to have in PS2 they want to spread them out, a fight of 400 v 400 in stairwell fight would be chaotic...especially with the lower TTK in this game.

Yeah, I know it's necessary to support the larger numbers. It just doesn't seem like bases are really "indoors" anymore, more like a pavilion.

[SKYeXile]

Yeah, I know it's necessary to support the larger numbers. It just doesn't seem like bases are really "indoors" anymore, more like a pavilion.

yea i dont see why they could not have large underground complexes that are open myself.

[Bags]

Uh, we've only seen the insides of two, maybe three bases, and all of them have unique interior designs as per Arclegger on TB's stream.

It's a bit early to make that claim don't ya think?

[Zenben]

Uh, we've only seen the insides of two, maybe three bases, and all of them have unique interior designs as per Arclegger on TB's stream.

It's a bit early to make that claim don't ya think?

I'm really going less on the base design, and more on the capture system. PS1 had a centralized point you had to get to, whereas PS2 is going for a Battlefield conquest system. Just hoping other bases have different types of capture systems, which I don't think anyone has addressed yet.

[Coreldan]

I actually loved the bottlenecks. I remember the stress of being one of the last few people in the room outside the CC, being low on ammo, and you could hear the fighting in the hall outside. You knew it was probably only seconds before a couple enemy MAXes push through the door and mow your team down, and you're praying the spawn tubes stay up so you'll be able to come back at them and have one last chance of clearing them out from behind.

I give it that it had it's times, but when that's all the base fights were about, meh..

I'm also hoping to see the bases expand more underground at some point. Or perhaps a new base type that is more underground than on the ground level. But mostly still with fairly open designs.

[Bags]

I'm really going less on the base design, and more on the capture system. PS1 had a centralized point you had to get to, whereas PS2 is going for a Battlefield conquest system. Just hoping other bases have different types of capture systems, which I don't think anyone has addressed yet.

They stated on the same stream that bases have different capture mechanics.

Have you not been following E3 at all or what?

[Zekeen]

I wish one of the base types could have a similar design and capture type to PS1. Just something to see every now and then, instead of gone for good. It was a pain, but I liked it and will miss it.

[Bags]

I don't understand how a base made entirely out of bottlenecks is appealing. Or do you guys like to spam grenades/lasher/maelstrom~?

[Zenben]

They stated on the same stream that bases have different capture mechanics.

Have you not been following E3 at all or what?

Missed that. This makes me happy. :groovy:

[JesNC]

This is something that occured to me while watching the recorded stream, too.

Although the central point seemed quite defensible with a coordinated team, the points are very open from several sides.

Now don't get me wrong, corridor defense/assault in PS1 was very dull gameplay-wise, but I had some very cool A-New-Hope'esque moments dug in in the basement, listening to the fight outside and waiting for the inevitable MAX crash.

It's no game breaker by far, it's just something I (and I suspect I'm not entirely alone on this) will miss for my first few nights of PS2 - along with assault buggies :D

[GhettoPrince]

You're looking at them through nostalgia colored glasses, they were just big rooms full of boxes and once you dropped the gen and started the hack? , 9 times out of 10 you already had the towers so you were just in a very boring 15 minute wait. Those bases were way too small for vehicle combat too, a single orbital strike could kill the whole damn courtyard on most of them.


I will say that I miss bridge fights. I don't know how choke points will work with the new hex map, but those bridge fights were crazy.

[Cuross]

I dunno. I really liked how courtyard battles were in PS1, how you would battle your hardest trying to prevent the enemy from rushing the doors. Not to mention, everything seemed so much closer together than the videos we're seeing now. But my beef is, at least with the bases we've seen, that I find the whole capture points mechanic a bit tacky. Guess I just prefer a more tactical reason to take points, like point A lowers host Empire's respawn rate, point B raises host Empire's equipment costs, etc., and you could capture the base by going straight for the CC, but capturing all these other points decrease the amount of time necessary for that main capture.

I still don't know how I feel about mapping out base fights to mimic modern shooters, though. I hope that there are bases out there that would just turn out to be a tactical clusterf*** for attackers, you know, a base that has been built to defend and not be so open like the ones we saw.

[Death2All]

The old base designs, while iconic, were awful. That's the plane and simple truth. There was no thought put into the design of them at all. Everything was way to narrow and choked off. Made offense a real bitch in that game. Factor in all the Thumper spam and you had a really frustrating experience.


I'm loving the open design of the bases. It's going to make the fights a lot more enjoyable. Although I noticed that pretty much all of the capture points were all inside of really small choked off rooms. Obviously you can't have a capture point in the middle of nowhere right out in the open, but when you put them in tiny choked off areas like that it just becomes a spamfest.

Also, I'm not too thrilled about capture points being these bland things you just stand at and hold "E" until it flips. I think they've said that there will be different methods to capture points. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

[megamold]

i loved the ps1 base fights, even with their bottlenecks ( and there were alot of bottlenecks lets be honest here ) and they will allways have a special place in my gaming heart.
but i dont think that a nostalgic hindsight of the bases would make em work better in ps2.

what ive seen so far really pleases me in terms of base design, its more interesting to look at, more intricate, more chance for tactical play.
what i am mostly missing from the live demo at E3 is the actual fight towards the base ( ie more medium-long ranged combat ) and even that looked very interesting from looking at the surrounding area.
didnt Tray say a while ago there would also be more walled in bases, more similar to the ps1 style bases?
even tough i loved the ps1 bases i do think this will be a change for the better in general.

[ringring]

You're looking at them through nostalgia colored glasses, they were just big rooms full of boxes and once you dropped the gen and started the hack? , 9 times out of 10 you already had the towers so you were just in a very boring 15 minute wait. Those bases were way too small for vehicle combat too, a single orbital strike could kill the whole damn courtyard on most of them.


I will say that I miss bridge fights. I don't know how choke points will work with the new hex map, but those bridge fights were crazy.
The hack time could also be the most awesome time too.

Unless you have never fought for a resecure and got it back with seconds to spare or fought to the last bullet to defend your hack. Thinking back, that happens lost of time and perhaps we've given that up. Beta will tell I suppose.

Bridge fights, I will not miss those ... push across .. someone ahead of you in an ams chickens out and deploys everything comes to a suddering halt and everyone is killed. So you go back to spamming across to the other side at stuff you can hardly see. Stale bridge fights were by far the worst thing in ps1

[Zenben]

The hack time could also be the most awesome time too.

Unless you have never fought for a resecure and got it back with seconds to spare or fought to the last bullet to defend your hack. Thinking back, that happens lost of time and perhaps we've given that up. Beta will tell I suppose.

Bridge fights, I will not miss those ... push across .. someone ahead of you in an ams chickens out and deploys everything comes to a suddering halt and everyone is killed. So you go back to spamming across to the other side at stuff you can hardly see. Stale bridge fights were by far the worst thing in ps1

Disagree. Bridge fights were one of my favorite aspects of PS1. Especially the Ceryshen bridge. Man I loved ramming tanks over the side with my Reaver.

[Kalbuth]

I watched yesterday a PS1 vid on youtube on a base attack.
All I can say is thank you SOE for getting us rid of these insanely stupidely boring bottleneck spamfests. I'm not going to miss old bases at all.

About bridge battle, they are part of my fondest memories back in the days, but that's for a very specific reason : I was Vanu at that time, Magrider driver, and a Magrider hovering on water pummeling the ennemy shore while zig-zagging to evade ennemy fire, able to take out average reaver-spammers because we had no splash dammage on water at that time, doing fast incursion on ennemy territory, zipping around and squishing infantry.... well... that made bridge fights good! :) It was Ze Best Combat scenario for Magriders, ennemy without cover, ability to control the range of the fight, no splash damage on you. How I hated Thunderers when they appeared! :lol:

[I SandRock]

I agree, said this to a friend only yesterday. They can make in-door areas without having to resort to the narrow PS1 corridors. But at least large indoor areas would've been awesome, and keep things varied. It was a large part of what made PS, PS. The big outdoor fights with vehicles etc. and then getting out and going in-doors, where the nature of the fight changed completely. Now it just seems more like generic FPS (BF3, CoD etc.) shooter + vehicles + more players.
No more spec op drops to take down a gen, to hold a CC, to retake a base, no more sneaking into the vehicle bay, the backdoor, etc. *sniff*

[megamold]

No more spec op drops to take down a gen, to hold a CC, to retake a base, no more sneaking into the vehicle bay, the backdoor, etc. *sniff*

where do you get that from? just because the E3 players dont know what they are doing doesnt mean there cant be any spec-ops on towers , barracks, forwards spawn, vehicle bays,.... when the game gets into the hand of experienced players.
if anything i think they gave us more targets to take into consideration when doing spec-ops or general squad tactics.
the E3 gameplay is just a bad example of the tactical gameplay that ps2 is built around, and they did this on purpose to pull more people into the booths.

the backdoor in ps1 never made much sense to me really, yes lets build a base right here and wall it as much as possible and lets put the CC underground so its hard to reach. oh! lets also put a single door on the outside somewhere thats leads the enemy straight to our cc !

[DviddLeff]

I hated indoor fights in PS, the only good parts were in the lobbies of the buildings or the larger rooms in basements where some tactical play may be worthwhile. Camping doorways and stairwells was shit.

[Figment]

Considering they are going to make different interiors in different bases, it'd be nice if they include one base based on the old layouts per continent, just improvements in door/tunnel size, etc. Same goes for courtyards with more enclosed walls.

But yeah, it's nice that they go for variety in base design. I just hope they make some bases with underground sections and defense choke points (maybe more entrances and slightly harder to defend choke points and all), just so a base fight can really be a siege rather than a slugfest/battle royale.

[Cosmical]

I do agree they look alot different, and as far as i can tell sniper lines of sight and effectiveness seems pretty limited. But we will see.

I was kindof hoping that this new point capture system they have would be similar to the lattice system for taking capital bases.

i.e. take all the surrounding points, then push into the main base for the final fight. Where defenders could hunker down, and attackers have multiple avenues of attack. Seems like its just a large area cluster fuck, which is fun for other reasons, and obviously spreads the combat like the devs want.

But misses out on that concentrated large scale push, last man standing CC hold. But modern shooters cant justify small doorways, with lots of troops trying to force through, with friendly fire and other such issues. It would make it a massacre in an unfun slaughterhouse kindof way.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

I don't understand how a base made entirely out of bottlenecks is appealing. Or do you guys like to spam grenades/lasher/maelstrom~?

The majority of the people here were the ones spamming plasma around corners waiting on their MAX timers. Reading a lot of the stuff posted on this site, its as if I played a completely different PS from everyone else. I delete more posts than I actually post, cause I find its just not worth it most of the time.

[ringring]

The majority of the people here were the ones spamming plasma around corners waiting on their MAX timers. Reading a lot of the stuff posted on this site, its as if I played a completely different PS from everyone else. I delete more posts than I actually post, cause I find its just not worth it most of the time.
Not me, I hardly ever used a max and thumper even less.

But I kinda liked the rhythm of a base fight and even an interfarm on the attacking side.

I think the thing I'll probably miss most (assuming there is not equivalent) is the epic hack defences or resecures. But, for all that I'm sure ps2 will replace that with something equivalent I just don't know what right now.

(Funny tho it was some of the fighting shown reminded my in a way of some of the fight there used to be in caves, if not quite as tactical.)

[Dart]

As a leader of a so-called 'spec ops' Outfit I'm mildly concerned by the ease with which of good lib gunner could wipe out an entire squad 'inside' a base because whoever designed the amp station had an irrational fear of ceilings!

The compromise the devs seem to have found is to make all vehicles ridiculously squishy (if you hit rock in your tank, you will lose half your amour) but that will be decried and probably change early in beta. So then what's to stop base fights turning into the inevitable vehicle camp-fests they will surely become? Hint; put the bases below ground.

[JesNC]

The majority of the people here were the ones spamming plasma around corners waiting on their MAX timers.

Totally! Until I was enlightened and basked in the greatness that was the HA/Surgile.... /sarcasmoff

Now aside from that, I think everyone in here actually agrees that the old base interiors became a spamfest very early into PS' lifetime.

Still, sitting tight inside, assigning firing lanes and waiting for whatever was to come through that door was one of the more memorable experiences in PS. So were gen holds.

All this being fundamentally different to the base we've seen in the E3 demo stream, where you can basically run a tank up to the CC or reaverspam the doorways leading into it (and we thought towers with actual doors were bad. Ha!).

I have no idea if the new layout plays better or worse. It will certainly be different and it will certainly be as spammable. For my liking it lost too much of the confinement of the old bases, but I'm interested to try and I will adapt.

[mynameismud]

My big concern for the new bases is how open they are...especially from above. I was rocket spammed by reavers enough for several life times in planetside 1.

During higby's lil interview with the other long haired fellow showed it. He ran to the base to get spammed by rockets two or three times in a row.

[Levente]

I actually loved the bottlenecks. .

you just failed right there...

[megamold]

My big concern for the new bases is how open they are...especially from above. I was rocket spammed by reavers enough for several life times in planetside 1.

During higby's lil interview with the other long haired fellow showed it. He ran to the base to get spammed by rockets two or three times in a row.

A : get a rocket launcher and blow it up
B : get into a aircraft and chase it down
c : report to commanding officer and have them send some flyboys in to deal with it
D : try a different route

i could go on ...

i believe einstein said it best :
insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[Dart]

A : get a rocket launcher and blow it up
B : get into a aircraft and chase it down
c : report to commanding officer and have them send some flyboys in to deal with it
D : try a different route

i could go on ...

i believe einstein said it best :
insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Those are all methods for dealing with a problem which should NOT be a problem. Aircraft should not be able to camp doors leading directly from spawn rooms or doors leading to capture points. That is poor level design and will lead to ps1 style vehicle camping - something most of us would rather see the back of.

[GhettoPrince]

he didn't lose half his armor from the rock, he got hit in the ass by a TR tank. Yeah, I could have said the name of the tank, but that joke is too easy.



Also, (and this is the important part) We've only seen one base.

[megamold]

Those are all methods for dealing with a problem which should NOT be a problem. Aircraft should not be able to camp doors leading directly from spawn rooms or doors leading to capture points. That is poor level design and will lead to ps1 style vehicle camping - something most of us would rather see the back of.

i saw the dude getting shot in the open field, i dont know what you were watching.
he also doesnt have map knowledge, so he doesnt really know what other paths could be taken to avoid the reaver.

and a reaver IS a problem for infantry, its supposed to be ( in a non doorblasting way ) and there are solutions to this.
IRL an attack helicopter is a problem for troops on the ground as well, that doesnt mean nothing can be done.

in ps1 a tower pretty much had 1 exit meaning reaver camping was easy, bases and towers in ps2 seems to have loads of exits to combat this problem.

[mynameismud]

A : get a rocket launcher and blow it up
B : get into a aircraft and chase it down
c : report to commanding officer and have them send some flyboys in to deal with it
D : try a different route

i could go on ...

i believe einstein said it best :
insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

A. sure that works well when your getting spammed, just like it did in 1
B.yup that too works extremely well, ill just go to a terminal while he's spamming me
C.sure then i could complain to someone im getting rocket spammed
D.or i can go the other open path around capture point building, im sure he wont see me from up there

all your solutions assume you see it all coming a mile away, when your fighting for your life on the ground more often than not you wont know till you already have five rockets heading for ya.

i enjoy infantry combat more than vehicle combat so im just being a selfish person. but the fun of a base battle for me was that we finally pushed them inside so we could get out of our boring vehicles and actually fight like men.

but whatever man this aint gonna change. so im done discussing it. good day to you sir, thx for the snarky reply.

[ringring]

I would have thought if reavers are interfering with the phutzerg that's a hint for someone or maybe several someones to pull their AA spec'd Lightings.

I've do doubt it will happen, there will be folks who don't want to go into the grind and will sit in an AA vehicle. The only question is how the balance plays out.

ps by 'Reaver' I mean ground attack airchav.

[Kalbuth]

ps by 'Reaver' I mean ground attack airchav.
We're going to have to adapt our lexicon quite a bit! :D tough times ahead

[megamold]

i wasnt trying to be snarky :)

i was actually talking about this situation in ps2 , not ps1

A: yes this will work, the pilot in the reaver cant check all the exits all the time
B: same answer as A but yes, this is more difficult
C: this isnt complaining, its tactical info the commander can use and react to since he will not be able to spawn people from that tower he will need to do something about it
D: not all exits are obvious and still A applies

and i say again : this is in reference to PS2 NOT PS1 , in ps1 this was indeed a big problem, but higby has talked about how to counter this problem and all the solutions i offer above are taken from what he said, and what i saw from the stream.
and all these options are viable , some more so then others and some more challenging then others
but viable none the less

[Shade Millith]

you just failed right there...

And you also failed just there...

Different people, surprisingly enough, have different options. This shocking fact may be a little much for you to handle. But I assure you, it's true.


In fact, I agree with him. The bases in PS1 were actually something that could be called a military base. It's designed to be defended, and provided a flow to the game.

This... 'base' (I say the word in the loosest possible way) we've seen isn't a base, but a series of randomly sprawled-out building designed to be an COD style deathmatch arena. None of it makes any sense to be anything but.

The very controls to the bases facilities are spread around outside the central, and most defendable area. With big open air area's one must walk through to get to them, or have a hostile drop from the sky almost directly on top of.


So yes, this base looks to be about as fun as playing a round of COD Deathmatch for me. Utterly boring and a random clusterfuck. Hopefully the other bases have something that can be defended, but after seeing this, I doubt it.

[Revanmug]

So yes, this base looks to be about as fun as playing a round of COD Deathmatch for me. Utterly boring and a random clusterfuck. Hopefully the other bases have something that can be defended, but after seeing this, I doubt it.

And because 234213 corridor where 2 group clashes is not a utterly boring and random clusterfuck?

... You are right. It is a utterly boring and orderly clusterfuck.

[KTNApollo]

We haven't seen the inside of Bio-Labs yet. There very may well be corridors!

[Figment]

The majority of the people here were the ones spamming plasma around corners waiting on their MAX timers. Reading a lot of the stuff posted on this site, its as if I played a completely different PS from everyone else. I delete more posts than I actually post, cause I find its just not worth it most of the time.

Not at all, I will personally miss the adrenaline of slowly and sneakily bypassing well defended positions.


And with the continuous decloaking we're seeing on infiltrators, 80% of my gameplay has been pretty much thoroughly screwed over if it can't be certed to be full-time cloak, since my gameplay is based around patience, crawling to my destination, observing etc.

In PS1 there were times I'd sit in between a group of 20 enemies for 5 minutes before making my move, all the time fearing I might be discovered by being bumped into, plasma'd, moving too fast or one of them turning on Dark Light in my direction, hearing the door open behind them and then the REK initiate. In PS2 none of that seems to happen. That makes me very, very sad.


Bypassing people won't be a challenge because the bases will be too open for that, instead I'll be forced to engage people and draw attention all the time because my cloak will run out continuously, or when running or whatever. I'm not playing PS just because of the combat, but largely because of the infiltration game against non-NPCs.

And even if full-time cloak is possible (without being turned into a poorly cloaked, thus visible object), there would have to be some sort of objective to use it for. I've not seen that as of yet.

[megamold]

We haven't seen the inside of Bio-Labs yet. There very may well be corridors!

higby did say that there will be bases that are mostly underground, then they have to have corridors :)

[Xyntech]

And with the continuous decloaking we're seeing on infiltrators, 80% of my gameplay has been pretty much thoroughly screwed over if it can't be certed to be full-time cloak, since my gameplay is based around patience, crawling to my destination, observing etc.

They've said they are going to be introducing alternate styles of cloak, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a style more like PS1 Infiltrators being added.

[ringring]

Not at all, I will personally miss the adrenaline of slowly and sneakily bypassing well defended positions.


And with the continuous decloaking we're seeing on infiltrators, 80% of my gameplay has been pretty much thoroughly screwed over if it can't be certed to be full-time cloak, since my gameplay is based around patience, crawling to my destination, observing etc.

In PS1 there were times I'd sit in between a group of 20 enemies for 5 minutes before making my move, all the time fearing I might be discovered by being bumped into, plasma'd, moving too fast or one of them turning on Dark Light in my direction, hearing the door open behind them and then the REK initiate. In PS2 none of that seems to happen. That makes me very, very sad.


Bypassing people won't be a challenge because the bases will be too open for that, instead I'll be forced to engage people and draw attention all the time because my cloak will run out continuously, or when running or whatever. I'm not playing PS just because of the combat, but largely because of the infiltration game against non-NPCs.

And even if full-time cloak is possible (without being turned into a poorly cloaked, thus visible object), there would have to be some sort of objective to use it for. I've not seen that as of yet.

There have been loads of times when I've said 'watch out figgy is around somewhere' :)

[megamold]

They've said they are going to be introducing alternate styles of cloak, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a style more like PS1 Infiltrators being added.

higby did a hypothetical where he said that you could get a cloack that lasts much much longer, but you will most likely be giving up something like a rifle and be "stuck" with a pistol and a knife

[KALU]

I will miss the old base fights also, BUT with what we all have been seeing of the new game its just incredible I still cant believe we are getting another Planetside after 9 years.

I trust they will design some awesome layouts.

I'm so freaking excited! :D

[Aurmanite]

And you also failed just there...

Different people, surprisingly enough, have different options. This shocking fact may be a little much for you to handle. But I assure you, it's true.


In fact, I agree with him. The bases in PS1 were actually something that could be called a military base. It's designed to be defended, and provided a flow to the game.

This... 'base' (I say the word in the loosest possible way) we've seen isn't a base, but a series of randomly sprawled-out building designed to be an COD style deathmatch arena. None of it makes any sense to be anything but.

The very controls to the bases facilities are spread around outside the central, and most defendable area. With big open air area's one must walk through to get to them, or have a hostile drop from the sky almost directly on top of.


So yes, this base looks to be about as fun as playing a round of COD Deathmatch for me. Utterly boring and a random clusterfuck. Hopefully the other bases have something that can be defended, but after seeing this, I doubt it.

http://wwiiflighttraining.org/Images/1943BaseAerialView.jpg

http://www.aed.usace.army.mil/extrememakeover/May-2003-Polecharki-ANA_res.jpg

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/grafenwohrarmybase/images/2-image-2.jpg

Here's a look at some real bases for you. Hopefully this gives you an idea of what a "military base" is.

[Figment]

There have been loads of times when I've said 'watch out figgy is around somewhere' :)

Hehe, I've been said to have been a primary target over everyone else in a vicinity at times. :lol:

Hear RAS threw quite a few tantrums on /c in his day because of me! xD

"FFS people! How can you @*$&%@#^@# lose a CC and then have the @#*@$^*$^ ANT get stolen with 24 people inside guarding it and 80 people on cont versus one NC!?"

Aaaah good times. Good times.

[MrBloodworth]

While I do like how the game is looking, I'm really going to miss the pushes down stairs and through hallways that PS1 had. Even within bases, you had clearly defined lines of fighting. Zurvan just looks so open compared to the old bases.

The way it looks for PS2, at least with the base we've been seeing, it seems like base fights will just end up being localized BF3 conquest matches. Hopefully other base types will have a centralized capture point that your team must push through chokes to get at.

I feel you.

[Sturmhardt]

Yeah I really hope that bottlenecks will be back, its been always an awesome fight around those.

[MrBloodworth]

Not at all, I will personally miss the adrenaline of slowly and sneakily bypassing well defended positions.


And with the continuous decloaking we're seeing on infiltrators, 80% of my gameplay has been pretty much thoroughly screwed over if it can't be certed to be full-time cloak, since my gameplay is based around patience, crawling to my destination, observing etc.

In PS1 there were times I'd sit in between a group of 20 enemies for 5 minutes before making my move, all the time fearing I might be discovered by being bumped into, plasma'd, moving too fast or one of them turning on Dark Light in my direction, hearing the door open behind them and then the REK initiate. In PS2 none of that seems to happen. That makes me very, very sad.


Bypassing people won't be a challenge because the bases will be too open for that, instead I'll be forced to engage people and draw attention all the time because my cloak will run out continuously, or when running or whatever. I'm not playing PS just because of the combat, but largely because of the infiltration game against non-NPCs.

And even if full-time cloak is possible (without being turned into a poorly cloaked, thus visible object), there would have to be some sort of objective to use it for. I've not seen that as of yet.

I never cloaked much myself. But I agree, there seems to be a real lack of the infiltration game in this new version. Really good post.

[Hamma]

We haven't seen the inside of Bio-Labs yet. There very may well be corridors!

The biolab dome is similar to outdoors, trees and lush landscapes. It also has some deformed trees and plants where the empires experimented with different things.

There's buildings and stuff in there too so it's similar to outside combat only you can't be bombed or gal dropped on since its.. in a dome ;)

[Aurmanite]

I never cloaked much myself. But I agree, there seems to be a real lack of the infiltration game in this new version. Really good post.

The increased complexity and openness of the bases will greatly improve a cloakers ability to be stealthy and infiltrate. There was almost no opportunity to do anything meaningful as a cloaker inside a base in the original.

We didn't see any people being particularly stealthy in the E3 footage because everyone was more concerned about doing everything they possibly could before their time at the station was up.

[Figment]

Here's a look at some real bases for you. Hopefully this gives you an idea of what a "military base" is.

And here's some that are actually built for defending and being sieged, rather than "cheap, temporary, troop stationing well away from the frontline". You know, buildings built to withstand a siege and create killing zones.

Star Fortresses:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Fortbourtange.jpg
http://www.vanbaaljuweliers.nl/content/files/WS000016/Naarden.jpg

Citadels:
http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/iran/images/safavid-dynasty-citadel-500.jpg
http://www.ecastles.co.uk/citadel_m.jpg
http://www.le-relais-etoile.be/uploads/dinant-et-sa-citadelle.jpg


Castle towns:
http://www.letrabet.com/carcassonne1.jpg

Concentric castles:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Krak_des_chevaliers_-_artist_rendering.jpg
http://www.chiddingstone.kent.sch.uk/homework/castles/dover/images/aerial.jpg

Motte and Bailey:
http://www.castlesandmanorhouses.com/castles/pics/windsor03.jpg

Maginot line bunkers:
http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/Secteur-Fortifi%E9-des-Alpes-Maritimes/abe.jpg
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/m/maginot_line/barbonnet/aerial_view.gif

[GhettoPrince]

Even if the long cloak cert is only 4 or 5 minutes, that is still plenty of time to sneak in, find a place to recharge, plant your explosives, spot for your squad, do whatever you need to do, and then bug out to find a place to hide while the ability recharges again.

You're an infiltrator, you're not a ghost.

[Aurmanite]

You didn't do yourself any favors showing the exact same type of multi-building layouts that the PS2 bases have.

Moats would be super effective against hover tanks.

Castles? Come on.

[Stew]

I can't say I'll really miss them. Base design for the most part in PS was horrible. Yay for fighting huge bottlenecks in stairs and corridors.

Yeah i kinda agree My favorite type of battle in Ps1 was mostly rooftop invasion and bridje battle mostly !

The corridor type of base battle was pretty noobish and straigth foward no need to be aware of angles and no need for a proper (( cover coners , aerial )) gameplay i prefer by far the ways based are build in planetside 2 its more skills based and also involve a way more team work !

[Shade Millith]

Here's a look at some real bases for you. Hopefully this gives you an idea of what a "military base" is.

HA. Those might be military, but it's sure as hell not designed for defense against an oncoming army.


Guy above me posted a bunch of pics of things actually designed for that purpose. And with the tech displayed ingame, it would be beyond simple to add a freaking roof to the damn thing so the hundreds of enemies aren't dropping directly into the base, on top of the apparently-really-important controls to the entire base.

Like I said, these 'bases' aren't designed to be defended. They're designed to be a deathmatch between three teams.

[Kalbuth]

And here's some that are actually built for defending and being sieged, rather than "cheap, temporary, troop stationing well away from the frontline". You know, buildings built to withstand a siege and create killing zones.

[...]
Was rather usefull in middle-age

all disappeared as soon as guns were invented, strangely.

If you're going by a "we need a true base" mantra, then sry to say, but bases in the area of bullets weapons are like stated above, a bunch of building scattered, surrounded by some kind of wall, with people on duty at entry points.
Buildings being divived by functionality, barracks, mecanics, ammo store, etc...

[Figment]

Even if the long cloak cert is only 4 or 5 minutes, that is still plenty of time to sneak in, find a place to recharge, plant your explosives, spot for your squad, do whatever you need to do, and then bug out to find a place to hide while the ability recharges again.

You're an infiltrator, you're not a ghost.

Compared to 15 seconds what I've seen so far?

Four five minutes owuld be a big, BIG difference in what you can accomplish. But unfortunately, any timer would be a threat. Say there's a four-five minute period.

How long would the recharge period be in between cloaking?

You didn't do yourself any favors showing the exact same type of multi-building layouts that the PS2 bases have.

Moats would be super effective against hover tanks.

Castles? Come on.

Sarcasm aside, looks like you failed to get the point. You were showing off bases built to house troops, not built to withstand sieges and not expected to frequently be under assault or having to fend off attacks on their own.

Just look at the defenses of airports in Iraq and the images you posted: some fences and barbed wire, beyond that, relatively thin walls. No, that's going to stop a tank. :rolleyes:

PS2 is about sieging and capturing bases so naturaly they should be more like castles, or rather, fortresses and bunkers.

PS2 bases don't look like that unfortunately since they've not been built by siege engineers: There are HUGE gaping holes in the walls where any unit can pass by. Plus, the facilities within the walls have huge open doors and large hallways and a lot of non-connecting court yard rooms and aren't built to create killing zones, slow down enemies or anything like that at all.

PS1 had killing zones because its bases had fully surrounding walls with accompanying open killing zones, had inter-connected hallways, tight and winding corridors, as these could all be turned into choke points and killing zones. PS1 base design is fastly superior to what we've seen in PS2 in terms of defensive capacity.

Whether gameplay is superior remains to be seen. The bases seem to be designed around supporting the assaulting force. Which is a... rather awkward strategy.


But yeah, moats alone may not stop VS hover tanks... but the walls behind those moats would. Not having walls NOR moats doesn't stop anything! Beyond that, I take it you do understand that moats are there not to stop crossing, but to slow down a crossing and create open killing zone areas?

Basically defensive fortifications are designed to minimise defender exposure and maximise enemy exposure for as long as possible and funnelling enemies through tight corridors to slow them down further. Anything they do take (for instance the outer walls) always have defenses that are oriented outwards and are completely open inwards, so they can not be used against the defenders and they can be picked off with ease due to not having any cover.

Similarly a Magrider floating over a moat in front of a wall filled with defenders poking guns out would not have cover from anything, would face all the firing hole openings and would thus die very fast.



An additional concern for more modern bases and PS2 bases in particular are airborne threats. They need to take into account air threats very seriously.

Because we're still seeing in PS1 what happened at Monte Cassino:
1944 The Destruction of the Abby of Monte Cassino I - YouTube


Hence it's already an extremely good improvement that PS2 walls have roofs and that we have AA turrets since the final updates of PS1. However, it would have made sense that there'd be some sort of defenses against HART style drop pods for instance. PS1 had the SOI, PS2 doesn't right now and its bases are thus more vulnerable.

[Figment]

Was rather usefull in middle-age

all disappeared as soon as guns were invented, strangely.

Not at all.

Most fortresses, especially star fortresses, were designed in the period of new fire arms.

The design changed from high walls to low profile, hard to hit with artillery, bunker design, due to cannons. Old forts and citadels have however played significant roles during World War II.

See the Maginot line which is from World War I - World War II. I'm quite sure they had guns then.

Similarly, the Atlantik Wall which you as a Frenchman should be well aware off took some effort to crack.



The most important consideration in modern base design is basically aircraft and cost. You can't as a government quite squeeze as much money out of the peasants these days as you used to. Hence why most military bases that are meant to be sieged are these days... Large underground bunkers with extremely thick roofs.

Another consideration is how temporary a base is. Military camps in Afghanistan also have the requirement that they must be demolished quickly so that the enemy could not make use of it themselves in the event of a retreat.

Btw, in those base designs, air strikes, nor full on military invasion are not considered likely. They are mostly built to withstand small groups of mortar and rocket fire by dispersing the troops over larger areas and making them harder to hit.

That doesn't mean it's actually a more effective fortress than say the Citadel of Dinant. Please also note that the monastery of Monte Cassino could not be taken by ground without a huge cost of life, so they bombarded it with huge amounts of bombers for many days in a row.

[Kalbuth]

You don't protect yourself from aircrafts today by putting your troops underground, inside big walls and such, making them useless.

You protect from aircrafts by killing the aircraft.

Same with vehicles

PS1 "siege resilient" bases were utterly stupid. They simply stop the defenders on their tracks, crammed inside, surrounded by 3 kilotons of steal-beasts, flying and running around, without any effective way for the defenders to kill them. You just sat inside waiting for the infantry zerg to come in.
It can be effective, when your base is Fort Alamo, ie, the last base you have on the cont.
If you expect to try capturing things and get the upper hand again, they were horrible once you were sieged.

Open bases with actual effective ways to fight back the attackers while leaving you mobile == win.

EDIT : in fact, various designs == win, so all this should be left until we have proper insight of bases design

[Aurmanite]

The bases in Planetside 2 don't look like they were built to withstand sieges. They look like they were built to perform a function. Techlabs for building and producing vehicles, Biolabs for farming/growing stuff, Amp stations for power delivery, etc etc.

The inside base fights were the worst part about Planetside. Some people enjoyed it, sure. Sewer rat might be enjoyable as fuck but I wouldn't know cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker.

[Figment]

But Kalbuth, the PS1 bases and towers wern't designed to deal with aircraft and neither were infantry weapons.

That has come up quite often.


The best way to deal with that is to make a transitional area between indoors and outdoors, where you have some cover, yet can fire upwards without being gunned down from the front immediately.

As said before, the PS2 base walls have been significantly improved in anti-air protection for infantry and MAX units by simply providing rooftops to block incoming missiles.


Making a base completely open is just inviting people to flank your position and use significantly stronger firepower and armour indoors (which you won't have to fight back with), you honestly think you have more chance to fight back when enemy tanks and aircraft can freely fire into your base on top of an infantry push?

The current Tech Plant design we've seen is basically inviting enemies over for tea. You can't fight back from there at all, because you die shortly after spawning due to lack of cover and funneling of enemies.

[Figment]

Aurmanite, I love your tunnelvision but please try to look beyond your antipathy for defensive capacity. Role play buildings are nice and fine, but that doesn't mean they should be the only ones.

I never stated everything should be 100% fortress. In fact, if you read back, I said I wouldn't mind one (ONE!) base per map that's more defendable alla a PS1 base, but improved for gameplay. I was already quite specific then.

[Aurmanite]

Aurmanite, I love your tunnelvision but please try to look beyond your antipathy for defensive capacity.

You should probably heed your own advice my friend.

[EVILoHOMER]

I wont miss them or the towers, they were the reason most people quit because they were boring to fight over. We asked for new bases time and time again but never got them and instead were given BFRs so everyone quit lol.

So glad the new bases look as epic as they do.

[proxy]

Holy crap listen to the fatalism up in here.

It has been stated, there will be a variety of bases, some with walls, (omg), circling them.

Turn that "I will miss them" into a "I sure hope they have them".

Take some Xanax, too.

[MrBloodworth]

I wont miss them or the towers, they were the reason most people quit because they were boring to fight over.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg

[Kalbuth]

Honestly, PS1 overly defensive stance makes me overlook this entirely. :)
You'll need active defense to defend a Tech plant? Once they are inside, you lose it? Well, we'll see how it goes, but if it gets rid of overpowered defense (through patches buffing defense every time) of PS1, rather good.

[wasdie]

We'll see more defined lines and areas of control when the game is in beta. Right now they spawn everybody so close together it becomes like a disorganized game of Battlefield 3. People are just trying to get kills and experience the game, not actually win.

[Kaw]

PS2 is about sieging and capturing bases so naturaly they should be more like castles, or rather, fortresses and bunkers.


This is supposed to be a game first and foremost. Even in real life, where defenders can't respawn, these fortresses are only captured by far superior numbers. At the Battle of the Alamo, for example, 2500 soldiers took two weeks and lost more than 600 men to take a monastery from 200 farmers. At the Battle of Monte Cassino, in the video you linked, the allies suffered 55,000 casualties to the 20,000 of the German defenders. This was after flattening the abbey with thousands of tons of bombs.

Trying to take a castle when both sides have even numbers and the defenders respawn closer to the fight wouldn't be fun at all. The god awful base design was what created the never ending stalemates around doors of PS1 bases, and it is one of the things that shouldn't return in PS2.

[Rbstr]

Pictures of old bases

Yeah, none of those structures are worth shit with modern weaponry.

A modern fortified compound might be something like the US's Iraq Embassy: Just some thick concrete buildings and some walls. None of which would stand up to modern military equipment.

[Figment]

I wont miss them or the towers, they were the reason most people quit because they were boring to fight over. We asked for new bases time and time again but never got them and instead were given BFRs so everyone quit lol.

People didn't quit over the bases. BFRs also wern't a replacement for new bases. The main issue was that if they would change a base, they would force people to download the entire map again. They could add BFR terminals though, since they did not interfere with the map (already on flat ground, didn't cut through the map).

Furthermore, people didn't ask for bases to be completely replaced because they didn't do, they asked for new base designs for increased variety.

They also asked for specific improvements regarding corridors (things like doubling the width, not creating lobbies out of each corridor, nor fully open base design). And the aforementioned improvements to fight from indoors to outdoors. Nobody ever asked to completely remove indoor underground combat and replace it with Core Combat/urban style base design: single/triple room small door buildings that can be camped easily from the outside. Urban combat though was requested on a regular basis as an addition, but usualy not in relation to base layout, usualy more as an alternative to completely exposed field combat.

What people quit about in relation to choke points, was the effectiveness of AoE weapons, but that had little if nothing to do with the choke point design, but the AoE weapon balance.

[Landtank]

Has anyone noticed that military bases aren't the main line of defense in modern military conflicts? The city itself is, because its significantly more practical. Lessened chance of starvation, bombing runs that take out your whole garrison etc. Planetside 2 has no cities though, YET!!! One can hope.

The "bases" were designed as research and production facilities, not fortresses. I wouldn't be against the occasional fortress at all, definitely not, but I take the bases as what they are, a collection of structures each serving and individual purpose. By making multiple capture points they ensure that you have to have complete control of the whole facility, instead of zerging the CC and blocking up the stairwells and corridors with MAXs and AOE.

Can't wait for this game, give it to me nao!!!

[EVILoHOMER]

The way I remember it was 3 months after launch people were bored of the game and calling for new content. SOE rushed out Core Combat which was something no one asked for and we were saying it sucked in the 2 week short beta. So it got released and no one ever went down there as it was too much effort to travel to them places and it just added even more land mass.

So many people I knew quit then because like JTLS for SWG it was make or break for the game. It became clearer and clearer SOE didn't care about Planetside as we had no more content after that and very little in the way of actual major patches.

The whole time people were asking for new base and tower designs because the ones we had clearly were broken and weren't fun to fight over. Towers especially were poor design where it just became about camping the doors with vehicles. We didn't get anything really, they scrapped the capital base concepts and they just added shields to a main base in the middle of each island if I remember correctly.

The bending and BFRs happened in 2004 and it was like great more stuff we weren't asking for. They changed the look of the map, it looked like someone designed it in MSpaint and replaced one useless island with 4 even more pointless mini ones noone ever went to.

BFRs were the things where EVERYONE quit and I mean it killed my Outfit and to that day not a single friend of mine went back to Planetside and neither did I. I mean not only did they look dumb but they were so OP.



Those 3 months in 2003 though were amazing and I can't wait to have them back. These new bases are so much better in design and I don't miss a thing from Planetside.

[Aurmanite]

You couldn't make AoE weapons any less powerful without making them completely useless. The problem wasn't the weapons, it was the dozens of people using them in tightly packed corridors. I'm being antipathetic again, because I disagree with what you're saying.

The bases in the original were designed by people that couldn't fathom how they would play out when you stuck 200 people in them. No one could have reliably guessed how they would have played out in 2003 because there was absolutely nothing to go by.

The best parts of Planetside, especially for cloakers, was when battles were going on around and in the courtyard of a base, and the space between the base and tower/AMS. Once you got inside it was simply about slapping on RExo, heavy assault, the odd MAX, and plowing through until you got to the gen/tubes. It was ridiculously bland.

Your original post about the thrill of hacking a door as a cloaker, while cool, illustrated how little there was to do as a cloaker in/around the base. If I wanted to hack a door, I'd haul out my MCG, kill the fuck out of everything that moved, hack the door, pull out my decimator and nuke any MAXes that might be standing there.

Your cloaker would hack the door, and likely be shot half a second later. Or, if you did make it somewhere, your options were to sit still and provide intelligence, or die horribly to everyone else. Cloakers could sometimes do boomer runs, but most often they occured when the attacking force held all but the lower portions of the base.

I don't understand how a crafty player like you can look at these new bases and not be extremely excited by the overwhelming amount of area you will be able to employ your ninja skills.

[Figment]

<3 People... PEOPLE.


I simply responded to Aurmanite with the extreme opposite. I've never once stated here we need every base to look like a medeval fortress!


READING COMPREHENSION/CONTEXT PLEASE.

Now calm down and try to look closely at what I've been saying:


Bases should be defendable (the whole point of a defensive structure is a bonus to defenders)
Bases should be possible to take (PS1 style choke points should be less critical: more and slightly bigger entry points)
Vehicles should stay out of the interior of buildings
Individual rooms are easy to camp and take. It would make no sense to not have buildings where you now and then would have to fight through consecutive rooms to at least reach a control point: if a control point is one room away from the outdoors, it's incredibly easy to take. There's no challenge in that!
The same goes for generators and other critical functions and capture points. Try to remember this: Why did people hate the Bio Lab? Because it was over so damn fast!
Why were AMP stations, Redoubts, AT Plants and Mod Buildings no fun to defend? Because you could not reach the control point due to being camped indoors. Why? Because the control point was basically in another building than the spawnpoint, meaning you'd have to pass through a highly camped area in order to reach and defend these points the moment you died once. They put too much power in the hands of the attacker.
Why did people hate Interlink Siege? Not just because it had good chokepoints, it had more entrypoints than a Bio Lab after all. No, because the radar (!) gave the defenders loads of information on how and where to defend. Without radar due to the radar virus, Interlinks (despite the choke points) always fall within minutes.
I'm all for variety, some open bases, some closed bases. Some in between.
I'm very much against creating bases that make it too easy to assault. That reduces the need for tactical maneuvres, teamwork and thinking and simply strengthens the effect of numbers alone.


Having some open bases is fine, having all open bases is a zergfest's wet dream. Getting zerged in every base is going to be a nightmare and demoralising for the smaller defensive teams.

Don't forget that you run the risk of scaring those people away, too, if numbers, not brain and brawn become too important.

[ringring]

It's very odd that some people seem hate the best game that there has been out there over the last few years. Perhaps they're trying to show some loyalty towards it's replacement, sort of a variation on the Stockhom syndrome.

[Kalbuth]

It's very odd that some people seem hate the best game that there has been out there over the last few years. Perhaps they're trying to show some loyalty towards it's replacement, sort of a variation on the Stockhom syndrome.

Being able to point out (fatal) flaws in something you like >>> blindly defending it.
PS1 base design was a fatal flaw. Overly defensive stance has proven to be a fatal flaw in the end, making people incredibly bored. In the last years, the game revolves around trying to be defending an Interfarm ....

On top of that, it wasn't "the best game" I played over the last few years for me. It was one of my prefered game from 2003 to 2007.

@Figgy : big difference between PS1 and the open design you see here : PS1 bases had what we internet network guys call Single Point of Failure : 1 gen. 1 CC. 1 spawn room. You lose either of these, you're near the end.

It's not the case in the PS1 base we see at E3, making the "campability" of the base rather low.

[Turdicus]

All of the arguments made here have some merit to them, but considering the number of people the game is going to support it doesn't surprise me that bases look like they do now. If PS1 bases were bad with 200 people fighting over them, imagine how bad they would be with 400 people, or 600 people, or 1000 people. Yeah I think you know where I'm going with this.

I won't pretend to know what other bases will look like or how they will operate, but it does seem to me that having one central CC to fight over for an entire base wouldn't work very well with 600 people all going there at once. As for the fortress argument, I wouldn't be opposed to having some interesting variations on old fashioned castles in the game here and there :D Maybe 1 to 3 per continent, in an update. After all many castles went out of fashion because cannons knocked down all of the walls too easily, or shot over them entirely. In PS2 the structures are immortal, so that should count for something.

[Figment]

You couldn't make AoE weapons any less powerful without making them completely useless. The problem wasn't the weapons, it was the dozens of people using them in tightly packed corridors.

It would have been quite easy to not make the effects stack (like if plasmad, any further plasma would not do damage). That would have been a change to the weapons that would have changed everything, at the same time you could do something about the damage per tick. So I strongly disagree with you on that.

Plasma was too easy to use en mass. That's a problem with the weapon.

The bases in the original were designed by people that couldn't fathom how they would play out when you stuck 200 people in them. No one could have reliably guessed how they would have played out in 2003 because there was absolutely nothing to go by.

I'd say that goes for the entire continent. I'd also say there's still lessons not learned about outdoor play judging from the design of Indar being the same open wasteland that made infantry combat poor outdoors.

PS2 bases aren't perfect either. There's big issues with it because the change has been so radical IMO you get the complete opposite effect where now the attacker >(>>) defender (PS2, depending on base), rather than defender >(>>) attacker (PS1, depending on base). We'll see though. I'd rather see that range of bases go more like this: defender <<(<>)>> attacker. But for the big ones, I'd say defense should be a tad stronger. If they're so important, why wouldn't you defend them properly?

The best parts of Planetside, especially for cloakers, was when battles were going on around and in the courtyard of a base, and the space between the base and tower/AMS. Once you got inside it was simply about slapping on RExo, heavy assault, the odd MAX, and plowing through until you got to the gen/tubes. It was ridiculously bland.

Yeah... No. You clearly aren't an infiltrator-type cloaker. The best parts as an infil is being able to handle any given situation. Including the indoor fight, but especially the outdoor-to-indoor siege bit, because that's where you can be the most decisive.

Your original post about the thrill of hacking a door as a cloaker, while cool, illustrated how little there was to do as a cloaker in/around the base.

Wait, what? I give ONE example and you suggest that's all I ever did? And you ignore the bit about the CC stealing, the ANT destruction, the CY vehicle jacking, AMS jacking, the Router placement, the gen blowing, the spawntube blowing, the equip/vpad blowing and ambushing to stall vehicles getting out, the assasinating, the module stealing, the Flail disrupting, the prepping of an entry point for a Galaxy drop or MAX crash, creating distractions on the other side of a base (or easiest: pretend to blow the gen and get a hack on instead making people move throughout the interiror of the base en mass instead of acknowledging the actual incoming invasion of other people)... should I go on?

Geez, talk about lacking imagination!

If I wanted to hack a door, I'd haul out my MCG, kill the fuck out of everything that moved, hack the door, pull out my decimator and nuke any MAXes that might be standing there.

Your cloaker would hack the door, and likely be shot half a second later.

Who needs a REK to open an enemy door? They're curtious enough to open them for you. Again, use some imagination. If you didn't bring an EMP and there's a mine at the door? Just lay your own mine next to it, wait. Someone will think it was an attempt to get a kill, rather than them removing the mine for you. And after they run back in to get new suit, you're in safely. Yay!

Or, if you did make it somewhere, your options were to sit still and provide intelligence, or die horribly to everyone else. Cloakers could sometimes do boomer runs, but most often they occured when the attacking force held all but the lower portions of the base.

Again, you underestimate a good infil. Seems like you were pretty horrid at it.

I don't understand how a crafty player like you can look at these new bases and not be extremely excited by the overwhelming amount of area you will be able to employ your ninja skills.

Considering I'd have to actually have, you know, a stealth suit that works, I'm more than a little underwhelmed.

See, 15 seconds is not enough to take someone out and run away if you actually have to cross half a base if not back and forth through a base to lose the people chasing you. It's incredibly fun, but hard enough when you're invisible. I don't need to be a visible easy one shot kill all the time.

Neither do I think infils need sniper rifles. That's literally the worst design decision I've seen so far because it just encourages an entirely different form of playing.

[Xaine]

Uh, we've only seen the insides of two, maybe three bases, and all of them have unique interior designs as per Arclegger on TB's stream.

It's a bit early to make that claim don't ya think?

All of them have a unique design?

I hadn't heard that.

I'm not saying your wrong, but for each base to be properly 'unique' would be a hell of alot of work.

[MrBloodworth]

All of them have a unique design?

I hadn't heard that.

I'm not saying your wrong, but for each base to be properly 'unique' would be a hell of alot of work.

As with all video games, they are made from modular pieces.

[Aurmanite]

Lots of words

Pretty much everything you mentioned a role you performed in a stealth suit, you could do better and safer in armor. Except maybe the router placement and the CY vehicle jacking. Half of those take place outside of the terrible bases.

After the pistol pass I absolutely merc'd fools as a cloaker. It wasn't my favorite setup, I usually preferred to drive/gun a tank, but I played a bit of everything.

In my experience there were 2 types of infiltrators. The ones I killed, and the ones someone else killed.

[diLLa]

It's confirmed that all bases will have a unique LAYOUT, not necessarily unique in looks.

Besides, the gameplay on E3 is exactly 1 base of 1 continent. Yet some of you act like all bases are confirmed as open bases.

I don't understand how you can already claim that the bases are bad in PS2 if you have only truly seen 1.

[MrBloodworth]

Doubt that will represent a substantial level of uniqueness. Move around a box or 2 here or there maybe.

It does quite well.

[Eyeklops]

I am going to miss the laggy, skilless AOE spam fests too!

Uh, we've only seen the insides of two, maybe three bases, and all of them have unique interior designs as per Arclegger on TB's stream.

It's a bit early to make that claim don't ya think?

Bags, your reading my mind again...GET OUT!!!

[Figment]

Pretty much everything you mentioned a role you performed in a stealth suit, you could do better and safer in armor. Except maybe the router placement and the CY vehicle jacking. Half of those take place outside of the terrible bases.

After the pistol pass I absolutely merc'd fools as a cloaker. It wasn't my favorite setup, I usually preferred to drive/gun a tank, but I played a bit of everything.

In my experience there were 2 types of infiltrators. The ones I killed, and the ones someone else killed.

Hahaha better and safer in armour. *snickers* yeah, you tap-crouch in a rexo through a back door defense or walk around in spawns full of enemies while CEing the spawn tubes and see how that works out for you. :rofl:

Sorry for not taking you serious, but you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Aurmanite]

Hahaha better and safer in armour. *snickers* yeah, you tap-crouch in a rexo through a back door defense or walk around in spawns full of enemies while CEing the spawn tubes and see how that works out for you. :rofl:

Sorry for not taking you serious, but you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

I think you greatly over estimate your own abilities.

[Raymac]

Yeah the base interiors were the thing I got bored of the fastest in Planetside 1. Fighting in the same stairwell over and over and over got sooo boring. It got to the point where I wouldn't even go inside anymore. I'd help take the CY in my Reaver, then once we had that secured I would fly patrols to fight off any reinforcements coming in from another base.

I couldn't be more thrilled that they completely redesigned the bases, and it's made even better by the fact that each base will be unique.

[MrBloodworth]

You in beta already?

You think this is a new invention?

[Figment]

It's confirmed that all bases will have a unique LAYOUT, not necessarily unique in looks.

Besides, the gameplay on E3 is exactly 1 base of 1 continent. Yet some of you act like all bases are confirmed as open bases.

I don't understand how you can already claim that the bases are bad in PS2 if you have only truly seen 1.

They have also confirmed there are no vast underground structures already and they prefer a "barracks" and "dispersed outdoor building" setup. Beyond that, there would be some bases with more enclosed walls, but if you look at the layouts of bases visible on the Indar map, nothing spectacularly different.

They also said they already removed the idea of base shields having to be disabled with separate generators and of course Art. Int. turrets because they didn't like the idea of players having to deal with some strategical PvE elements rather than pure 100% PvP. That removes content for saboteur-type infiltrators and simplifies the game more towards slugfest. Removing a CY shield is for an infil after all the equivalent of dropping the drawbridge.



So yeah, they'll look different and layouts will be different, but I don't forsee major differences in gameplay methodology beyond that some may be more verticaly oriented than others for instance. :)

[Kalbuth]

I think you greatly over estimate your own abilities.

Honestly, the guy was a PITA :)

[Figment]

I think you greatly over estimate your own abilities.

No. You underestimate carreer infils because you've been a casual infil at most.

[Aurmanite]

No. You underestimate carreer infils because you've been a casual infil at most.

There's no such thing as a career in a video game.

I've seen some really badass cloakers in my day. I played with Raging Primates and watched osp420 going wild. My opinion of cloaking was formed having witnessed this first hand.

Cloaking will be much, much better in #2.

EDIT:

I want to make sure you know that I'm not saying you weren't a great player, Figment. I'm sure you stood knee deep in a pile of kicked ass. I'm merely being real about the limitations Planetside had. Bad base design amplified other problems with classes/roles/how the fight played out.

[proxy]

Internet tough guy fps ps2 street cred fight club guys! Remember rule #1!

[infinite loop]

I will absolutely not miss the spamfest bottlenecks from PS, for the same reason I hate playing Operation Metro in BF3. That said, I prefer infantry combat and am a bit concerned that this is going to turn out to be a vehicle-combat heavy game. It needs to find a balance to appeal to the broadest audience possible.

I do like the overall design of the bases we've seen so far except for 2 key things:

- It looks like there is only one barracks/spawn room for the team holding the base. If so, that thing is going to be spammed so hard there will be little chance of defending the base after your team has lost the "courtyard". I would like to see maybe one spawn point per capturable area, but only allow the team that holds the base to spawn on it if they also hold that point. Maybe even have a spawn point internal to the main building that doesn't have external doors.
- I like the vehicle terms being indoors, but it is a bit too open. If base defense is going to require a strong defensive vehicle presence, then the defending team needs to actually have a chance to pull vehicles.

I prefer the "urban style" combat of modern fps games, where I can move from cover to cover and stay away from vehicles for the most part. I'd like to think infantry have a chance to do something useful in PS2 besides being reaver fodder.

[AgtPanda]

I still have my hopes up for the bio lab. That giant dome looks like it houses a rainforest and I want to see how that plays out.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I miss the well-lit interiors... were they trying to save on their power bills during that nightfight yesterday?

[Figment]

There's no such thing as a career in a video game.

Carreer infil simply means a player dedicated to infiltration when playing the game.

I've seen some really badass cloakers in my day. I played with Raging Primates and watched osp420 going wild. My opinion of cloaking was formed having witnessed this first hand.

Cloaking will be much, much better in #2.

Having witnessed someone cloaking is different from doing it yourself. We will have to agree to disagree on what's better.

Personally I don't want a sniper rifle on a cloaker, because of how overpowered it'd make an infil. Even one that temporarily cloaks.

EDIT:

I want to make sure you know that I'm not saying you weren't a great player, Figment. I'm sure you stood knee deep in a pile of kicked ass. I'm merely being real about the limitations Planetside had. Bad base design amplified other problems with classes/roles/how the fight played out.

I'm not taking personal offense, I'm simply saying the above because you really, REALLY underestimate what an infil can do. The fast majority of PS players don't fully comprehend the potential either though, so you're not alone in that. I've exploited that fact all too often to not realise that.

Even with the exceptional choke points in PS1, people still failed to realise that a door that opens without anyone actually coming through, is not a bug.



But regarding PS2, I hope you realise the following effects on infil:


Infils in PS2 will have temporary cloak ranging from 15 seconds minimum to ...?

CCs are spread all over the base and you have to pass through large open sections, increasing chances of detection.

Extremely short TTKs now combined with being visible, a lot. What does that mean for escape routes and contingency plans? A lot.

No third person view to detect enemies.

No Router pads.

No AMSes for freedom of approach route away from the rest of the zerg (more predictable).

No complete freedom to determine inventory.

No Wraith (as of yet).

No Phantasm (as of yet).

No generators to blow or use as distraction that we know of yet an when they are there, they will impact less.

More vehicle pads (less impact of sabotaging them - is that even possible?)

Possibly no spawntubes you can kill (can you even get into the room before it's captured?).

Less equip terms from the looks of it.

No coherent enemy defensive line to bypass (more open and more chaotic == more dangerous for detection and requires to look out for multiple directions, but is also much easier to bypass by non-infil friendlies so what's the point?).

More chaotic, fast paced combat (less time to do your job before friendlies or enemies arrive).

No CY Prowlers to jack and create some mayhem with.

No ANTs to blow up or jack to make a base drain.


Instead, maybe I get C4 to insta-pwn tanks? Yay...? Boring and lame tbh!

Compared to PS1, what's left? Running from cap point to cap point and sniping at melee distance? Oh please. :/


It's a completely different infil game and I'm wonder what, aside from playing the quick scope assassin or scout, is there left to do? I mean we're capable of carrying weapons capable of fighting MAXes now. The entire role of a PS infil may have changed beyond recognition and tbh, I don't like the idea of that at all. :/

More nub-cloaker killwhores != better gameplay!

[Kalbuth]

Support is being banned from 2012 games, Figgy, didn't you know? It's boring, anyway. Too slow and useless, wtf are these people who want to do anything else than spawn, rush and kill in a super micro-tactical way, anyway? Who the fuck tries to think larger than micro-tactical in a massive scale fps, that's stupid.
Bow down to CoD style, the epythom of fps.

(Not taking a shot at you, btw, Aurmanite)

[Metalsheep]

I will miss the Base fights from PS1, i enjoyed them most of the time, both attacking AND defending. Its definitely where MAXs shined, able to lead the push through those bottlenecks to move the lines of battle. As a dedicated MAX user, one of my favorite things to do was to be the lead, or second in MAX suit on a door push.

I don't mind the larger, more open base design in PS2, i just wish all the bases had proper walls.

People always complained that Defense was OP, but that is just a rule of warfare, defending is always FAR easier than attacking.

Also: A single, highly skilled cloaker could break the back of even the most well defended, highly populated, heavily entrenched bases with a single, well timed move. It is always a big deal when a cloaker is detected or suspected to be within the base. That one player could completely change the tide of a battle if he really knew what he was doing.

[xcel]

I think at least one special base in the game with a centralized capture point and a 15 minute secure time would be a cool easter egg thing for the planetside 1 vets to enjoy from time to time.

[Knightwyvern]

I admit I probably will miss it a bit.

[T MAN]

But regarding PS2, I hope you realise the following effects on infil:


Infils in PS2 will have temporary cloak ranging from 15 seconds minimum to ...?

No Router pads.

No AMSes for freedom of approach route away from the rest of the zerg (more predictable).

No complete freedom to determine inventory.

No Wraith (as of yet).

No Phantasm (as of yet).

No generators to blow or use as distraction that we know of yet an when they are there, they will impact less.

More vehicle pads (less impact of sabotaging them - is that even possible?)

Possibly no spawntubes you can kill (can you even get into the room before it's captured?).

Less equip terms from the looks of it.

No CY Prowlers to jack and create some mayhem with.

No ANTs to blow up or jack to make a base drain.

Instead, maybe I get C4 to insta-pwn tanks? Yay...? Boring and lame tbh!

Compared to PS1, what's left? Running from cap point to cap point and sniping at melee distance? Oh please!
^
This is what im going to miss from planetside 1, not the bases. Can you imagine having a gen on these new base and when you take it out or power drains out, all the lights that light up the bases would go out, "OMG that would be Awesome!" then it would make even better use of the flashlights and headlights.

Hope they are willing to add alot of this stuff that made Planetside, Planetside!

[Shade Millith]

Yeah, none of those structures are worth shit with modern weaponry.

A modern fortified compound might be something like the US's Iraq Embassy: Just some thick concrete buildings and some walls. None of which would stand up to modern military equipment.

The reason they don't mean jack shit today is because we don't have a building material common enough or strong enough to build buildings out of that can withstand modern weapons.

But in game they're using futuristic material that seems to be impervious to weapons.

Which would mean those walls and a roof are suddenly elevated to the best defense against hostile invasion once more.

[maradine]

I think we can agree that's a function of not wanting to maintain and transmit state truth on every last cubic meter of earth in the game world.

[Malachi]

Bottlenecks were awesome. They'd be crazy to not have a few bases/maps that had some nice bottlenecks.

[Xyntech]

But in game they're using futuristic material that seems to be impervious to weapons.

Yes, because unassailable fortresses are the height of fun gameplay.

Bases in video games are designed to eventually be taken. If they are designed well, they will allow defenders, even outnumbered defenders, to hold out decently, but in the end, games aren't fun if players can never capture positions.

Also, there is no reason to assume that these buildings are truly indestructible. Lore covers a lot of things, but in this case I think we can ascribe it entirely to gameplay. Planetside 2 is already pushing technology to the limits, and allowing players to destroy bases and terrain would probably be impossible on a game of this scale at this time. Not to mention that it would be a complete mess as far as gameplay goes.

I don't have a problem with wanting reasonably defensible bases, but from what I've seen it should be plenty possible to defend these bases, especially when it's 300 vs 300, instead of the 40 vs 40 vs 40 or whatever they had at E3. Besides, we already know that jump pads aren't on every base and some bases have walls encircling the entire courtyard.

The least we could do is try some of the different bases out in live gameplay before condemning them. Remember: Gameplay comes first. I don't give two shits about a "realistic defensible base." If it doesn't make for good gameplay, it's not worth including.

Bottlenecks were awesome. They'd be crazy to not have a few bases/maps that had some nice bottlenecks.

Variety is awesome. I wouldn't mind a few places in the game with a ton of bottlenecks. Just so long as it isn't the norm. That shit got old fast in PS1.