What Happened To The Bases...

[T MAN]

I remember seeing this a long time ago and thought it looked great. A better improved PS1 base with buildings inside, etc. Now what im seeing is not like that at all, they gotten rid of the walls and sheilds and just better placement of things imo. Now looks more like team deathmatch as people here have been mentioning.

Maybe, im hopeing is that we have not heard all the infomation about upgrading bases, that would call from space and help fortify your base.
I remember Smedley pointing out the landing feet on that building in the first reveal.

Well see with coming soon beta i guess, can't wait.

[Notser]

I believe there are different types with walls and without, also could be that they want it to be a more combined arms battle within the bases.

[fod]

i noticed this also but i just guessed (hoped) it was a different type of base or something

i dont mind some open style base
i dont mind some closed in style bases (like the one in the first picture)
i DONT want ALL of them open or closed in - give us variety

[Bags]

If you look at the hi-rez map of indar, there's 2 bases that are 80% surrounded by walls.

The others are between 0% walls and 30% walled in.

[Sturmhardt]

i noticed this also but i just guessed (hoped) it was a different type of base or something

i dont mind some open style base
i dont mind some closed in style bases (like the one in the first picture)
i DONT want ALL of them open or closed in - give us variety

I second that.

[Otleaz]

I disagree. The more walled bases the better. You can find deathmatch areas at the lower tiered facilities.

[Xyntech]

While we haven't seen much of the whole base wall thing in recent footage, we also haven't heard anything on the subject other than that some bases will be walled in and some won't be. That may have changed, but there isn't sufficient reason to believe so at the moment.

Also remember that base layouts are very modular this time around. They can easily add, subtract, and move around walls at will. This means several things.

For one thing, no two bases need be too similar. While there are only 3 major types of large base structure, they will each be surrounded by a unique layout of smaller structures.

It also means we will be able to have odd layouts where the geography is incorporated into the base layout, creating defensive locations totally unlike anything in the first Planetside.

And finally, the ease of modifying base layouts means that if the open bases end up being horrible fights where defenders just get hopelessly steamrolled all the time, they can easily add some walls back in.

[Russ]

Having all the basses the same creates more a static gameplay. assaulting every base is no different than the other. So by changing it up it allows offence to have an edge or defense, maybe even neither. It keeps gameplay varied enough so it doesn't seem repetitive and adds a uniqueness to each base. Not to mention giving tactical differences for both defense and offence to adapt and change to

I like them all being different. Down to every last boulder and shrub. And the developers are showing this as well.

[Zidane]

Having all the basses the same creates more a static gameplay. assaulting every base is no different than the other. So by changing it up it allows offence to have an edge or defense, maybe even neither. It keeps gameplay varied enough so it doesn't seem repetitive and adds a uniqueness to each base. Not to mention giving tactical differences for both defense and offence to adapt and change to

I like them all being different. Down to every last boulder and shrub. And the developers are showing this as well.

I agree, by making all the bases different it will always allow for different types of assaults and defenses.

[Otleaz]

I agree, by making all the bases different it will always allow for different types of assaults and defenses.

There are plenty of ways to change a base without removing walls, though.

[fvdham]

Of course walls don't have to be attached to bases, they could make a Hadrian's wall across the map.

[Raymac]

You've got to be kidding me. Having a walled in area would be WAY more of a "deathmatch" arena than the layout Zurvan, for example, has now. You honestly think being surrounded by walls would make the game feel bigger??

Also, look at the terrain around that base. The hills and the buildings essentially create barriers and bottlenecks, but they do so in a much more organic way than freaking walls. I think it is brilliant design to be able to basically "hide" barriers.

[Otleaz]

You've got to be kidding me. Having a walled in area would be WAY more of a "deathmatch" arena than the layout Zurvan, for example, has now. You honestly think being surrounded by walls would make the game feel bigger??

Also, look at the terrain around that base. The hills and the buildings essentially create barriers and bottlenecks, but they do so in a much more organic way than freaking walls. I think it is brilliant design to be able to basically "hide" barriers.
I don't think you understand what walled combat is. It doesn't just delay some inevitable deathmatch, it completely changes the pace of the battle.

[Littleman]

I think walls will be subject to the natural barriers surrounding the base, as Raymac insinuated. Remember, we call them bases, but they're more like facilities. To me, the tech plant is the closest thing to arguably being an actual military grade base, while Amp stations look like power plants and Bio labs more like terra-formers.

Coincidentally, I think all of the access points are to further discourage the possibility of the defense getting locked into their base once the offense pushes into the courtyard. Likewise however, it makes defense harder. Both sides will need to fight like they're on the offense in PS2, turning it into a game of whom can push against whom harder.

[Rabaan]

....They are all belong to us? :groovy:

but seriously, i agree with the others, the different types of bases encourage different kinds of game play.

[Karrade]

I remember seeing this a long time ago and thought it looked great. A better improved PS1 base with buildings inside, etc. Now what im seeing is not like that at all, they gotten rid of the walls and sheilds and just better placement of things imo. Now looks more like team deathmatch as people here have been mentioning.

Maybe, im hopeing is that we have not heard all the infomation about upgrading bases, that would call from space and help fortify your base.
I remember Smedley pointing out the landing feet on that building in the first reveal.

Well see with coming soon beta i guess, can't wait.

Upgrading bases would be significantly awesome, the longer you hold it the more entrenched you become.

Like large CE only done by the base/resources or whatever.

[sunzen]

I hope there will be some walled bases, soon we will learn more. The walls add a raid or storm the castle feeling to the game which I like very much and really dont want to miss.

[ringring]

I agree, by making all the bases different it will always allow for different types of assaults and defenses.

True, but the downside is that you will be lost for longer and have more layouts to learn.

I give you caves - lots of people didn't like them because they couldn't find their way around
Even in current bases, how often have you been asked "Bio Lab, that's the one with the CC on the roof, right?'

**just pointing out an upside has a downside hiding somewhere**


Personally, I like the variety. I am not sure about the lack of walls but whether that is good or not I'll only come a solid opinion once I've been in game a seen and fought over it.

[Shadowrath]

I disagree. The more walled bases the better. You can find deathmatch areas at the lower tiered facilities.

More walled the better.

[Erendil]

I'm all for unique and varied base layouts, but I'm a little concerned about the lack of defensive capabilities some of these bases. Zurvan Amp station from the E3 footage has me particularly concerned.

The base is so open you can drive ground vehicles pretty much anywhere within the compound, meaning there is no solid defensible position for the defending empire to draw a line in the sand and stop an enemy advance, no place to safely repair/rearm their own vehicles upon retreat, and no place to safely rally up for a concentrated counterattack to push enemy forces out of the base. The surrounding terrain may serve to herd and redirect approaching attacking forces, but it's way too open to really stop them like PS1 base walls did.

More importantly, the base spawns are right out in the open just begging to be camped by vehicles. My biggest concern is that such open bases will make even slight pop disparities the deciding factor in base conflicts, and if the defenders are at all outpopped they'll be quickly spawn camped by vehicles until they're forced to spawn elsewhere, like in the caves.

I'm fine with towers and smaller outposts being of open design like that, but I wish the large facilities were more like well-defended fortresses.

It'll certainly make for different gameplay. With the huge number of respawn points available for troops I suspect base defense might be as much about spawning elsewhere and gathering forces for a counterattack on an overwhelmed base as it is standing your ground in the base itself and keeping defenders out from within.

I Can't wait to try it out in Beta. :cool:

[Ivam Akorahil]

i think it depends if an outpost is considered a military outpost or not. I would not shield, and wall an oil refinery in you know. while i would put strong emphasis on defensive positions on certain outposts that "overwatch" them.

to be honest there should be deploy-able permanent (but destructible)defenses such as low walls, sandbag barricades maybe ? - they never get old, even in the future

[Dart]

What I think we all want to avoid is the "PS1 Amp Station" style capture where you get the base because you managed to camp the doors to the 'CC' rooms with Tanks. I like the combined arms combat and I'm looking forward to see open terrain tank battles, but I don't want to see vehicles camping troops inside tiny, one-room buildings.

[Hmr85]

I'm all for unique and varied base layouts, but I'm a little concerned about the lack of defensive capabilities some of these bases. Zurvan Amp station from the E3 footage has me particularly concerned.

The base is so open you can drive ground vehicles pretty much anywhere within the compound, meaning there is no solid defensible position for the defending empire to draw a line in the sand and stop an enemy advance, no place to safely repair/rearm their own vehicles upon retreat, and no place to safely rally up for a concentrated counterattack to push enemy forces out of the base. The surrounding terrain may serve to herd and redirect approaching attacking forces, but it's way too open to really stop them like PS1 base walls did.

More importantly, the base spawns are right out in the open just begging to be camped by vehicles. My biggest concern is that such open bases will make even slight pop disparities the deciding factor in base conflicts, and if the defenders are at all outpopped they'll be quickly spawn camped by vehicles until they're forced to spawn elsewhere, like in the caves.

I'm fine with towers and smaller outposts being of open design like that, but I wish the large facilities were more like well-defended fortresses.

It'll certainly make for different gameplay. With the huge number of respawn points available for troops I suspect base defense might be as much about spawning elsewhere and gathering forces for a counterattack on an overwhelmed base as it is standing your ground in the base itself and keeping defenders out from within.

I Can't wait to try it out in Beta. :cool:

Well said and I agree with what you put.

[Erendil]

What I think we all want to avoid is the "PS1 Amp Station" style capture where you get the base because you managed to camp the doors to the 'CC' rooms with Tanks. I like the combined arms combat and I'm looking forward to see open terrain tank battles, but I don't want to see vehicles camping troops inside tiny, one-room buildings.

LOL exactly. Right now bases like Zurvan are looking to be a vehicle camper's paradise.

I remember watching the GDC footage with the nice, semi-scripted firefight they had going on after they rolled vanguards into the Amp station. Then I saw a Reaver and Mossie fly overhead and I thought, "If those were PS1 pilots, all these softies we're watching would be dead right about now."

[Boomhowser]

Im liking the new look to base styles tbh, I find them pleasing to the eye and plenty of choke areas where large vehicles will not be able to pass through.
The buildings seem varied with mutiple entry/exit points on differing levels will make camping fun as you'll need to be on the ball to cover all exits.

I did however hope for a few of the original style bases until I sat down and thought about it.. back in the day we used to have 3-4 -6 hour fights over one base... ants would be dropped in and it was great fun.. typically if the base was taken in one of these fights it was due to the energy being depleted this couldnt happen in ps2 as thier is no longer worry about draining a base, this could mean a fully walled base could effectivly not be taken and slow the pace of the game to a standstill not something the devs are aiming for in PS2 I believe.

Another thing to take into account is we have yet to see much of the combat engineers tricks of the trade, will vehicles willing charge into open walled bases once say 10 engineers have mined the area /set up spits!!

All these are what ive geamed from the vids so beta will probally change my view point

[Jomo]

I'm skeptical till I see more. I like the idea of walled bases as a feature to enable the defending team to put a barrier between them and the attacking force. I was a big fan of sniping from the walls and keeping everyone out.

With that said, open bases could present more opportunities for the environment to play a part in the bases which could be nice as well.

I'm all for variety in base design. As previously mentioned, people eventually memorized all base layouts and attacks became the same thing over and over again. Switching it up with different designs could hold this off for awhile and add a little flavor to what happens.

I'm all for flavors.

[Jamini]

Another thing to take into account is we have yet to see much of the combat engineers tricks of the trade, will vehicles willing charge into open walled bases once say 10 engineers have mined the area /set up spits!!

All these are what ive geamed from the vids so beta will probally change my view point

I'm pretty sure spitfires are out, and mines are going to be much less prevalent. Think more battlefield and less PS for gameplay and you won't be disappointed later.

[Flaropri]

I think it's important also to keep in mind that bottlenecks should probably be larger/more numerous simply to accommodate the number of players available. If all you have are two small entrances with 4 fold the number of players defending/attacking you'll end up with defense being too strong.

It could also result in it being pointless to fight at those facilities with more than X number of players (where "X" is particularly low in relation to active population), as people stand around mostly bored waiting for the front lines to die off so they finally have line of sight and can shoot something other than the backs of their team or indestructible structures.

Obviously, some small facilities are already going to have inherent population soft "caps" in the same way as described above even without walls due to size, and given the number of locations, it is not an issue to have some bases with few/small defensible locations, but it shouldn't be the majority. Striking a balance between base layout and the number of players that will generally be involved in a battle at it is important.

Finally, I think that whether or not the size and number of entries is acceptable will depend on play-testing. So far we've primarily seen just Zurvan and a little of Hvar and I think a random Bio Lab exterior; and while E3's fight over Zurvan was a cluster-*, part of that was: new players/unfamiliarity with the map, E3 specific things like equidistant bases, and that all three factions were consistently there making it a 3.5 way fight (the 0.5 is for friendly fire).

I think we need to see what it looks like in the real game before we get too concerned, and see more than 3-4 bases in action at that.

[ringring]

I'm pretty sure spitfires are out, and mines are going to be much less prevalent. Think more battlefield and less PS for gameplay and you won't be disappointed later.

Ah but spitfires are in ... I'm sure there's a screen shot of an engineer skill tree somewhere.

[Karrade]

I've said a few times that defending some of these bases will be pointless or rather extremely difficult - does that mean I am saying its a bad thing - no, just stating what I see. Some places empires will defend, others they will attack and leave some alone utterly.

Picture this, for the 20th time Base A is under attack, Base A is open all over the place, no choke points, no way to form a solid defense, you can be hit from all angles (spawned on from anywhere with SL's). Do you go there, or do you go support the attack on Base B, which gives those exact same advantages to the attacker?

Its human nature to go where they will win, but beyond that, organised groups are going to go where they can make a difference. If Base C has lots of walls, and makes it difficult to attack against, why not make a stand there rather than the open, very tough to hold base?

People will camp the spawn tubes ALOT in these open setups, this needs to be addressed imho, maybe drop a warning if the drop zone is -hot- that way you can make it look swish as well ;).

[Boomhowser]

Its human nature to go where they will win, but beyond that, organised groups are going to go where they can make a difference. If Base C has lots of walls, and makes it difficult to attack against, why not make a stand there rather than the open, very tough to hold base?


Need to play beta before I can say for sure but I suspect it will be a resource thing something like you'll be getting resources to purchase aircraft whilst base is in your hands.. pretty pointless if you defending behind the walls, meanwhile the open area base your faction didnt bother defending will be granting the resources that make infantry assaults easier so your enemy now has an advantage as they attack you.. (hope that makes sense)

Again its speculation at this moment in time.. roll on beta so we can find out for sure!!

[lolroflroflcake]

I don't think a wide open base will be a pure team death match but it will fall quite a bit faster then a base with walls.

Attackers can litterly pour in from almost all directions and defenders will have less to work with, since they will be defending on the CC or what ever is the case in Planetside 2, therefore an enemy breakthrough will mean the loss of that part of the base rather then a signal to fall back to secondary defensive positions.

It appears that it has been decided that a large portion of the defensive play will be cut out for some bases. Then again maybe Zevran, the base we've seen the most of, is designed that way because its right smack in the middle and we will always be fighting over it.

I mean who can't say that they would have been happy if Cyssors design made the fighting progress just a little bit quicker so we weren't always fighting over it.

[Turdicus]

I can see a lot of people panicking over the lack of a traditional castle style base. It's true that those are much easier to defend due to the bottlenecks and kill zones and such, but I'll point something out.

Base defense is now going to be about holding strongpoints rather than holding the entire base. It's now possible to defend a base without even holding the entire thing since it doesn't revolve around one CC and one room. That being said the control point with the wall near it will be much easier to defend than one in a field.

The walls are built to allow shooting in two directions at once, towers are almost 360. Let go of the idea that the entire BASE needs to be defended and start thinking about defending points WITHIN THE BASE. I think that's the direction PS2 is going with.

[MrBloodworth]

Walls do not matter if you can just drop pod in right behind defenses.

[The Kush]

The first picture looks way better. They need more interior fighting room/levels, more corridors to go along with the open rooms, more protection, and like the first pic they need a perimeter around at least 50% of bases not 20%

[AThreatToYou]

I want a continent with a gigantic wall across the middle.

[Aberdash]

The first picture looks way better. They need more interior fighting room/levels, more corridors to go along with the open rooms, more protection, and like the first pic they need a perimeter around at least 50% of bases not 20%Sitting at a base for 4 hours defending it by camping the corridors sounds about as fun as spending 4 hours trying to kill the people camping in the corridors.

It's usually the defenders farming kills until the attackers get enough maxes for a max crash. I don't see the fun in that.

[Baneblade]

Don't forget that spawn camping isn't going to be as common in PS2.

[SnipeGrzywa]

More importantly, the base spawns are right out in the open just begging to be camped by vehicles. My biggest concern is that such open bases will make even slight pop disparities the deciding factor in base conflicts, and if the defenders are at all outpopped they'll be quickly spawn camped by vehicles until they're forced to spawn elsewhere, like in the caves.


I'm pretty sure in E3 they weren't even using the main base spawns. Each empire had a permanent foothold just outside the base they were spawning at. These are the outpost(twrs) they keep talking about. For the demo purposes they made it so you couldn't capture them.

In Higby's stream he respawn edge at a tower (maybe considered one of the base spawns, not sure if the structure was attached). But he actually jumped through a hole in the floor that had a force field. Not sure if there were other ways in or not, but made it look like you won't be able to access freshly spawned players there.

[Eyeklops]

What I think we all want to avoid is the "PS1 Amp Station" style capture where you get the base because you managed to camp the doors to the 'CC' rooms with Tanks. I like the combined arms combat and I'm looking forward to see open terrain tank battles, but I don't want to see vehicles camping troops inside tiny, one-room buildings.

1000% agree. Anti-door camping measures need to be designed into the maps from the start.

[SgtExo]

You might think having basses that are easy to get into like Zurvan will not be easy to defend. But think of it as if its attracting the attackers in, its the most obvious way inside so most ppl will go by that way. This means it is allot easier to plan for an ambush, let them come in and when the attackers are fully committed inside the base, the defenders can hit them from all sides in an ambush.

I also don't think that vehicles will be able to effectively camp the inside of a base without infantry support and isn't that what we want? If tanks go in alone, they will be kitted to death by infantry with AV weapons (I have seen happen in all the BF games). On the other hand, if you only go in with infantry, you might not have the punch that is needed to get a foothold in a properly defended base. So combined arms will be necessary in taking and defending a base, because if you go in as a one trick horse, you will be easily countered.

[Kayos]

I hope they have a bases like in the first picture, that looks really cool!

[Raymac]

The base is so open you can drive ground vehicles pretty much anywhere within the compound, meaning there is no solid defensible position for the defending empire to draw a line in the sand and stop an enemy advance, no place to safely repair/rearm their own vehicles upon retreat, and no place to safely rally up for a concentrated counterattack to push enemy forces out of the base.

That sounds exactly like the PS1 bases even with their walls. Vehicles could drive all around the courtyard. And you might want to take another look at the Zurvan base layout. The combination of hills and buildings limit the line of site for attackers tremendously. Now sure, if the base is completely surrounded then you are going to have a bad time, but the same is true for PS1.

Personally I'm really looking forward to the new design of the bases, both the variety and the use of terrain. I got tired of the repetative cookie cutter bases that lead to repetative cookie cutter gameplay. (take out turrets, push into CY, push into doors, push downstairs, rinse, repeat)

[SUBARU]

Don't forget that spawn camping isn't going to be as common in PS2.

Why is this?

[Deadeye]

My favorite part of defending a base in PS1 is when we all get on the walls closest to the tower and a massive fire fight would erupt between us and the enemy outside and on the surrounding hills. It's so cool to peek out, get off a few shots, take a bit of damage and duck back behind the cover of the large plates on the wall.

It does make the bases feel like castles but hell, that's what I, personally, want: To defend a castle, hold the walls and make the enemy pay for every inch they get closer.

[Dloan]

The base is so open you can drive ground vehicles pretty much anywhere within the compound, meaning there is no solid defensible position for the defending empire to draw a line in the sand and stop an enemy advance

Far too much PS1 thinking in this thread ie the only lines people had to cross were bridges and base walls. Maybe the line in the sand doesn't begin at the base, but amongst the surrounding terrain.

I expect if PS1 didn't have base walls, we'd be getting complaints that adding base walls to some bases would be "dumbing down" the game because it makes defense easier.

[MrBloodworth]

Defenders always have the advantage. Its called war.

You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked. - Sun Tzu

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.- Sun Tzu

The Siege part of war seems to have been removed in PS2. Its all open arenas on a contiguous map.

[SgtExo]

Defenders always have the advantage. Its called war.

Yes, but we don't want this to be a static fight where it takes 6 hours just to take 1 base.

[MrBloodworth]

Yes, but we don't want this to be a static fight where it takes 6 hours just to take 1 base.

That's where cleverness, and deus ex machina come in.

This is the difference between a war game, and a session based single battle game.

[Shadowrath]

Yes, but we don't want this to be a static fight where it takes 6 hours just to take 1 base.

Some people enjoy that though but for the other people it could be a drag.

[SgtExo]

Why would you want to be stuck in 1 base when you have a whole continent to fight over.

Think of it like this, what world war is more interesting to study; WWI with its front that does not move for the majority of the war, or the dynamic flow of WWII?

[SnipeGrzywa]

Why would you want to be stuck in 1 base when you have a whole continent to fight

Because if in one session (normal, not all nighters or weekend play) if you fight over the whole continent you are either A) steam rolling your enemy or B) being steam rolled. Either case not much fun since you are manuerving more then fighting.

Don't get me wrong, I want Auraxis covered in purple like everyone else :cool: but I also want fun doing it.

Some of the best fights, and therefore memories, are from 6 hr siege battles.

[sunzen]

Yes, but we don't want this to be a static fight where it takes 6 hours just to take 1 base.

When you think about it can you call a base a base when its controller changes every 10minutes ? Sure not every base needs to be a fortress but still some should require a decent effort to reconquer, just my opinion. Hope they have a mix of different types of defence constructions.

[Charred]

Ugh, the casual in this thread make me sick.
Everyone arguing for not having walls and having an open arena that's not defendable is either stupid or don't understand how war works. When one party sieges a settlement it should be SIGNIFICANTLY harder to take it than defending it because that's how this shit works.

"B-b-but we need to have a unique style to every base and therefore no walls."
That's fucking stupid and you know it. Walls can be placed differently and have another look, making something unique doesn't mean that you have to remove something.

Please take a moment and ponder on how fucking boring everything would be if 10 tanks could come take a base easily because they can roll up to the fucking point and cap it.

I'm all for having 3 easily accessible points outside the base but when it comes down to defending those last ones it has to be TOUGH and HARD. Stop being such codbabbies and battlefags, it's sickening.

[SUBARU]

If you cant defend a base.If defenders are good for nothing except farming xp.Will anybody defend? Or will we just take empty bases.Sounds like fun.

[Raymac]

Ugh, the casual in this thread make me sick.
Everyone arguing for not having walls and having an open arena that's not defendable is either stupid or don't understand how war works.

I'm not saying there should be "no walls". I'm saying they have made barriers without them looking like boring prison walls. Take another look at the view the OP posted, and take a look at the videos. You can see that the hills and the buildings surrounding the central structure of the base form walls and funnel attackers into killzones. Just because something doesn't look like a middle ages castle wall doesn't mean it's not an effective barrier.

[SgtExo]

Because if in one session (normal, not all nighters or weekend play) if you fight over the whole continent you are either A) steam rolling your enemy or B) being steam rolled. Either case not much fun since you are manuerving more then fighting.

Don't get me wrong, I want Auraxis covered in purple like everyone else :cool: but I also want fun doing it.

Some of the best fights, and therefore memories, are from 6 hr siege battles.

What I mean is that there is more then just base fights here.

I want to start out by going and capturing some outpost around a base as a precursor of the main assault, that should take from 30 minutes to an hour. Then the main assault would start its first phase, which would be that the armor would move in and try to neutralize the defending armor, meanwhile there is a giant fur ball in the air which will decide who has air superiority and lastly, special ops teams will start infiltrating the bases to try and take out turrets and hack some consoles. The first phase could be 15 minutes to 30 minutes long and the defenders could repulse the attack towards the attackers base. The second phase would be the longer one, where the two or even 3 sides are mostly down to infantry with some tank and air cover. The squads will fight over the different capture points and this should take from 15 minutes if you control all the surrounding territory or as long as an hour if you don't.

So what i mean by not having a six hour fight in 1 base is that you should never be stuck in one place just shooting at the exact same pixel down a corridor for defense. There should be progress on one or the other side. Like this in a 4 hour play, you could go from small outpost fights to huge vehicle battles between base and then a base assault.

[Littleman]

I'm not saying there should be "no walls". I'm saying they have made barriers without them looking like boring prison walls. Take another look at the view the OP posted, and take a look at the videos. You can see that the hills and the buildings surrounding the central structure of the base form walls and funnel attackers into killzones. Just because something doesn't look like a middle ages castle wall doesn't mean it's not an effective barrier.

That is some really high tier thinking yer asking fer from the common folk.

[Baneblade]

Why is this?

You can spawn at any intact spawn point your empire owns.

[Otleaz]

I'm not saying there should be "no walls". I'm saying they have made barriers without them looking like boring prison walls. Take another look at the view the OP posted, and take a look at the videos. You can see that the hills and the buildings surrounding the central structure of the base form walls and funnel attackers into killzones. Just because something doesn't look like a middle ages castle wall doesn't mean it's not an effective barrier.

That is much too large of an area if you count those as effective barriers, and the bottleneck not only has too large of an opening, but also has cliffs hanging above it that can be used by the enemy to shoot down on any defending units.

You also completely cut out interesting aspects of wall defense such as sabotage when you rely on natural barriers.

[Shadowrath]

Because if in one session (normal, not all nighters or weekend play) if you fight over the whole continent you are either A) steam rolling your enemy or B) being steam rolled. Either case not much fun since you are manuerving more then fighting.

Don't get me wrong, I want Auraxis covered in purple like everyone else :cool: but I also want fun doing it.

Some of the best fights, and therefore memories, are from 6 hr siege battles.

Best explaination I've seen yet.

[Ratstomper]

I for one am glad to see PS1 bases go. Hated all those hallways people tried to pack down; shooting the guys in front of them in the back and make in impossible for them to move back into cover. Heaven forbid one of the idiots behind you has a thumper...

I like PS2's more realistic approach to facilities. It means defenders will have to get more inventive and dynamic than just camping doors.

[fvdham]

There will be walls of flesh and metal.

[BeastBuster]

I think, for me, it depends on the number of big bases per continent. If the number is relatively low, I would much rather the bases be walled in and harder to take. That, and I love the idea of both laying siege to a base and being besieged inside one.

Also, I might be wrong, but it looks like the first base is still big enough to facilitate ground vehicle combat assuming the attackers can push inside.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Actually I have only seen very little of the interior of bases. I'd like to know more about what is in place currently. I mean, it's in a few bases here and there, but most the videos are all made in (more or less) the same area. It's hard to tell if what's depicted represents the norm or if it's just "that area".
I don't think every base has to be walled. That's fine. I have noticed the absence of much of an interior to the ones I've seen so far. Like... There not being one. It's just open. You could park a 747 in some of these rooms, and I've not noticed any doors, windows or anything. The whole damn thing is just open air.
But, like I said, I don't know if this represents most bases, or just the one or two I've seen. Seen lots of external shots of bases (LOOK! Big building surrounded by little buildings!) but you can't really tell much from that...

[Littleman]

I for one am glad to see PS1 bases go. Hated all those hallways people tried to pack down; shooting the guys in front of them in the back and make in impossible for them to move back into cover. Heaven forbid one of the idiots behind you has a thumper...

I like PS2's more realistic approach to facilities. It means defenders will have to get more inventive and dynamic than just camping doors.


This.

Defenders will have to push like they're on the offense.

Part of PS1's problem was also that once the defense was shafted inside their own base, getting out was a nightmare because every door was camped by a dozen turrets and fliers at least. In PS2, it seems as though if one is camping anything, they're doing it wrong. The match won't end after X amount of time. Maybe the base will change hands, but one's enemies will still keep coming unless they push them away with a superior offense.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I do feel that a base invasion should not be over in less than a couple hours, unless the enemy was either absent or caught completely by surprise (say a mass 50 or 60 man gal drop that was able to seize all points quickly before they could organise).

Too much "free flowing" and "fast paced" just makes it CoD/BF online with interconnected bases. I don't mind deathmatchy fast paced necessarily (I play Killzone a lot), but the larger scope of PlanetSide is supposedly catering to the strategic aspects of warfare, too.

To cite the example cited earlier of WWI vs WWII. The battle lines in WWII were more fluid, yes... But individual battles were fought over hours... usually days... sometimes longer. That's a consequence of the nature of larger scale battles. Even ancient sword and spear battles were fought over hours or days.

A FIREFIGHT may be over in minutes... because it's only a handful of people. And in an online game, where nobody cares about dying, they don't mind charging out. But in real life, even a firefight can drag on for a long time, several hours.

If bases are changing hands every few minutes, it reduces the amount of maneuvering play. When hostiles were sieging a base in PS1, you knew it would (probably) take a while for them to get in there and secure it, unless something unusual happened. This provides time to maneuver other forces, even just a gal drop behind enemy lines to attack a base the enemy may consider more important, thus drawing forces away from the first siege.

The length of the fights makes logistics and planning more of a concern (previously involving lots of Lodestars and AMS) in order to maintain the momentum to sieze the base.

I'm not saying it has to be done "the same way". I'm just saying making it TOO fast paced undermines the point of fighting over something in the first place. It can make it equally hard to take or defend a location. For example, the multiple capture points are not necessarily a bad thing, but done wrong it can result in a right merry-go-round as both sides are capturing then re-capturing then re-re-capturing the same points over and over.

Same goes for the bases themselves. If the battles are over TOO soon, then the importance of individual bases is reduced. Well, you're losing this fight, so just pop over here and zerg this other facility, cause you can probably take it in the few minutes it takes for them to get over there, then you can just come back a few minutes after THAT cause they'll have moved on from the first facility and you can take it back (while they take the OTHER one back). Everybody ends up just running in circles more than anything else, with only idiots staying behind to "defend" (i.e. get steamrolled).

Not saying it works this way. This is what the Beta will accomplish finding out. Just saying it COULD work this way.

I know the concept of the game is "perpetual warfare" and "always want someplace to go fight". That's good, I support both concepts. I just suggest, if not careful, it can TOO far the "always fighting everywhere" part and then it renders the conflicts moot (it's video game, so they're already moot, but you know what I mean).

Have to see in order to know how things actually work and are laid out. But, that's my thoughts, anyway...


Part of PS1's problem was also that once the defense was shafted inside their own base, getting out was a nightmare because every door was camped by a dozen turrets and fliers at least.

Downside of riding it out to the bitter end, known as "last stand", usually where the dirtiest fighting takes place. I don't think it's a "bad thing" or "problem". You didn't HAVE to stay in a base interior until the bitter end. Running outside the front door would be suicide, yes, but you could (usually) spawn elsewhere.

Case in point. I liked the last few minutes of the push inside a base (or the last bastion holed up in the gen). That was my favorite part. All the chaos just before that in the courtyard and outside the walls, was not as much fun, I thought.

[LtHolmes]

Ugh, the casual in this thread make me sick.
Everyone arguing for not having walls and having an open arena that's not defendable is either stupid or don't understand how war works. When one party sieges a settlement it should be SIGNIFICANTLY harder to take it than defending it because that's how this shit works.

"B-b-but we need to have a unique style to every base and therefore no walls."
That's fucking stupid and you know it. Walls can be placed differently and have another look, making something unique doesn't mean that you have to remove something.

Please take a moment and ponder on how fucking boring everything would be if 10 tanks could come take a base easily because they can roll up to the fucking point and cap it.

I'm all for having 3 easily accessible points outside the base but when it comes down to defending those last ones it has to be TOUGH and HARD. Stop being such codbabbies and battlefags, it's sickening.


So are you saying that we need walls in order for it to be a war? Or that walls are required to defend a position? I am not sure what your logic is. Also anyone that suggests not having walls equals casual players?...

You are also suggesting that it would be boring bc ten tanks would just theoretically roll up and capture a base. Are you suggesting that it would be easy for ten tanks to do this without help? or that we dont have significant means to defend or destroy armor? I am not quite sure. We could just as easily meet them with ten tanks, am I right?

Also are you suggesting that having walls that force a single point entry, cluttered with mines, and meat shields, tight hallways and corridors with doors, strafing with "a" and "d" spamming, clipping so that you cant move forward or retreat is fun?.. some might call that lack of strategizing bc it just becomes a question of which force brings more people to the party. A zerg of sorts.

Why does a last point have to be tough and hard by means of an non player mechanic? (walls). The defenders all ready have access to semi-closed structures, some cases of vertical advantage, spawning in base, vehicle pads, turrets, etc. Ultimately it should come down to the fight of players and their organization that should decide victory or defeat. Having walls that no one fights at besides the doors limits players choices on both sides! why make it a turtle fest? I want to have fun playing a game, and playing in a closed off base becomes a boring frag fest for one side usually.

I have played ps1 since launch and love it! But the base battles left a lot, hell a ton, to be desired. Also, plenty of us have a great deal of fun playing cod or bf3 as well as planetside. You think that all cod and bf3 players have nothing to offer the planetside community? You comments are illogical and more importantly not helpful.. please feel free to prove me wrong.

[Littleman]

Eh, reading the conversations, I can see people are obsessing over bases, when towers and bunkers will be more important to capturing bases than they were in PS1. In fact, controlling the adjacent territories is arguably essential to taking bases.

Since adjacent friendly hexes directly have an influence on hack times, a good defense won't just take a base point, they'll also simultaneously attempt to take the enemy territory adjacent to the base, maybe even doing so then backtracking to retake what parts of the base have been lost. If it takes 30 minutes to take a point without any adjacent hexes, the defense can take their sweet time while the interlopers are just being annoying.

On THAT note, any empire that thinks once they lost a base they should prep at another for the next incoming invasion ala PS1 is doing it so horribly wrong they need to be clubbed with a heavy pipe wrench until they forget PS1 ever existed. The reality of adjacent hexes influencing capture timers should encourage empires to clash when ever and where ever to prevent the enemy from having any hexes adjacent to their own base. Fighting in the fields should prove to be a superior defensive strategy to fighting at the base walls (or lack there of.) It's hard to argue against forcing your enemies to fight through your line for 5 minute hacks as opposed to 30 minute hacks.

This kind of scenario sort of played out in PS1 periodically, but only if the terrain offered a natural choke point or the bases were close enough together that it wasn't too far a drive/trek to get back into the fight.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Eh, reading the conversations, I can see people are obsessing over bases, when towers and bunkers will be more important to capturing bases than they were in PS1. In fact, controlling the adjacent territories is arguably essential to taking bases.

This is true. I hadn't considered that. It renders the base battle itself as a less consequential part of the overall conflict. By the time it gets to that point, the defenders are probably already fucked....


That said, I've seen next to NOTHING of the smaller exterior outposts being referred to here. Does anyone know anything much about them or what they are designed like?

[Baneblade]

Make walls out of Sunderers.

[Littleman]

This is true. I hadn't considered that. It renders the base battle itself as a less consequential part of the overall conflict. By the time it gets to that point, the defenders are probably already fucked....


That said, I've seen next to NOTHING of the smaller exterior outposts being referred to here. Does anyone know anything much about them or what they are designed like?

"Bunkers" will probably be akin to the smaller buildings we saw in the E3/ Higby stream. Just a crappy building in the middle of nowhere to take for the local hexes and may hold spawn points (not too sure.) I believe the structure Higby parked his tank near early on was one such bunker, but it's proximity to the base could suggest otherwise.

Towers, last I heard, had landing struts as of last year, and SOE was very implicitly, but not outright confirming, the possibility that towers can be moved. However, the latest Higby stream showed us what I believe was a tower, and it didn't look so flight capable to me. Mind you, it was also completely different in design.

[Sephirex]

From the flyovers I saw, it looks like they're trying to pull fighting away from the bases and aiming for larger battles out in the fields. I saw lots of chokepoint style canyons and bridges. Getting to the base may be the real challenge if teams are smart enough to exploit these.

Planetside 1 spent way too much in narrow hallways for such a large war-game.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

If this is all true, then I would proclaim it an improvement over the base battles (which aren't really very realistic anyway). Although, the flying tower bit strikes me as odd....

[Littleman]

If this is all true, then I would proclaim it an improvement over the base battles (which aren't really very realistic anyway). Although, the flying tower bit strikes me as odd....

It was cool in concept, like a mobile land base, but if they're tied to specific hexes... eh...

I wouldn't be surprised if the concept of flying towers was axed. We have Galaxies and Sunderers anyway.

[TerranRoughneck]

Anyone who feels like Zurvan, as shown in the screenshots in the OP, is too open or would be too easy to attack really should take a closer look. There are thee factors that make this base very defensible.

First: There two good sized walls with towers at each end protecting the main facility from two of the more open approaches.

Second: The walls and towers have 2 levels of turrents on them, Anti-vehicle on top and anti-infantry on the bottom(I At least that's how I recall it from TB's streams with Higby)

Third: Yes, the far side of the base is open but terrain has clearly been used to create natural bottlenecks. Rock formations stand in the way of pretty much all the roads leading into main facility.

It's not as easy as it looks at first glance; it's just going to take a bit more creative of a defense than that of a castle-type base. You put a platoon of guys on the walls manning the turrets with a healthy mix of snipers, AT and AA on top, some tanks/mines/AT turrets just inside the natural bottle necks on the (camera)north/north-east approaches and any ground assault will have a hard time getting through.

Of course this all depends on how well each faction is communicating and organizing. Having good commanders to over see this kind of stuff will be key, and more important than the base layout it self in most cases. The faction that works together, will win together. Mostly.

Ultimately though, the bases are going to be varied in terms of lay-out, amount of walls/buildings/natural barriers and just the pure difficulty of attacking/ease of defense. They've said it at least a few times and I feel like I've heard it quite a bit more than that. This is a good thing in my opinion. Variety is important to keep the game play fresh and those who like castle sieges can do that, those who prefer more open field combat can do that too.

Me? I'll be in a Mosquito, so much of this is null :groovy:

[vVRedOctoberVv]

It was cool in concept, like a mobile land base, but if they're tied to specific hexes... eh...

I wouldn't be surprised if the concept of flying towers was axed. We have Galaxies and Sunderers anyway.


MOBILE HOMES! IN SPAAAAAAAACE


Moving on... Yeah, I doubt that concept lasts long. I don't necessarily oppose or support it. It's just weird.

[Minigun]

i'm not sure if you guys remember the Indar map layout but i think each faction had 2 or 3 bases near their WG so to be honest with you i think base captures will be far and few and if they are taken it won't be long til they are resecured. Not to mention you will never be able to throw another faction off the continent because more troops will be concentrated into that area (not to mention the other faction pushing on their relieved defenses). so my thoughts are that there will be a constant deadlock in the "no-mans land" located between opposing factions bases.

[Sephirex]

snip

Great post! Fact is they're really trying to make the battles into something outside just driving to a base and laying siege.

I wouldn't expect to be too safe in your mosquito though. :D

[DrifterBG]

I just want to say that a lot of people here seems to have a Planetside 1 mentality. EVERYTHING. IS. CAPTURABLE.

Do you want to be stuck inside a 6 hours base battle, while a bunch of other people capture all your terrotories/outposts/towers and gains your resources? Fighting will not be in just the bases, they will be in the fields, and on the hills, and the towers that are now huge.

Walled in bases are all fine and cool, but they may make gameplay stale and long, where people won't bother fighting in them, since they aren't worth the time/reward.

Real planetside veterans, and real defenders will be able to have just as entertaining a fight with or without walls.

NOTE: I'm not saying I don't want walls, I'm just pointing out that the frame of mind of a lot of people seems to be stuck in a gamestyle that doesn't reflect the way this game will be done.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Anybody coming here with a PS1 mentality is probably because 90% of the people here play/played PS1 and liked it (more or less). Therefore, the logical follow up, is they lean towards wanting more of that. Them wanting the "old ways" is just as legitimate as you wanting "new ways". And people who liked a certain thing are generally just as "right" as somebody who doesn't like a certain thing.

[DrifterBG]

I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm saying their thought patterns may be a little... narrow... compared to the scale and changes that PS2 will bring.

I've played Planetside since launch, and I know how Planetside is like as well as most people here... the thing that I found is base sieges became stale and kind of boring.

I loved the dynamic nature of mid-field fights with having to actually look behind you for flanking tanks/aircraft, where I didn't have an enemy ducking in and out of base walls, and where there was an actual fight going on.

Some people love the "cozy" and "secure" nature of walled bases. They'll just make things easier as they cram a large number of their 666 in a nice sardine can to accept the precision guided whoopass from my aircraft.

[Raymac]

Anybody coming here with a PS1 mentality is probably because 90% of the people here play/played PS1 and liked it (more or less). Therefore, the logical follow up, is they lean towards wanting more of that. Them wanting the "old ways" is just as legitimate as you wanting "new ways". And people who liked a certain thing are generally just as "right" as somebody who doesn't like a certain thing.

That's all well and good, but there really needs to be more open-mindedness. This thread is a great example.
People want more walls.
The rocky hills act as walls.
But they don't look like wallls.
Doesn't matter what they look like, they are barriers, i.e. walls.
etc. etc.

TerranRoughneck laid it out nicely just now. They already have what they are complaining about. They just are unable or unwilling to see it.

[Landtank]

Me? I'll be in a Mosquito, so much of this is null :groovy:

If by in a Mosquito you mean the burning wreckage of one, then I agree :usa:

[Hamma]

The bases have gone through many iterations since last year. The second picture is one I took in May and that base likely is still in. Another thing to keep in mind is every base is different now because they are all laid out differently based on the surrounding terrain.

Also the tower we saw in the Fan Faire video isn't in the game like that anymore either, it's now the core for more badass towers. ;)

[QuantumMechanic]

Coincidentally, I think all of the access points are to further discourage the possibility of the defense getting locked into their base once the offense pushes into the courtyard. Likewise however, it makes defense harder. Both sides will need to fight like they're on the offense in PS2, turning it into a game of whom can push against whom harder.

(speculation) I agree this is what base battles in PS2 are going to be like. Instead of one faction defending against an attacking faction, there is going to be waves of people toggling control points back and forth repeatedly. Basically just like the "domination" style match type you find in modern FPS games (where far more time is spent on capturing rather than defending).

What I'm curious about now is, what will it take to end a base battle? These tides can flow back and forth endlessly. And there's no end of match countdown timer to determine the final victor.

[Littleman]

(speculation) I agree this is what base battles in PS2 are going to be like. Instead of one faction defending against an attacking faction, there is going to be waves of people toggling control points back and forth repeatedly. Basically just like the "domination" style match type you find in modern FPS games (where far more time is spent on capturing rather than defending).

What I'm curious about now is, what will it take to end a base battle? These tides can flow back and forth endlessly. And there's no end of match countdown timer to determine the final victor.

At a guess, when the "offense" has no adjacent hexes to the base and their forces are nearly if not wiped out in the base proper OR if the base is completely controlled and the offense pushes the former owners away and giving themselves a wall of hexes as a buffer zone. Basically, this will naturally happen when the base finally goes uncontested :p

As I said in another post, 30 minute hacks are a nuisance, but are more than ample time to handle if those invading forces are cut off from reinforcements. Keeping territory between your base and the enemy is the key. I feel base battles will just turn into merry-go-rounds until one side gets smart and surrounds the base with friendly hexes. The battle around the base is probably even more critical to victory than the battle within the base limits assuming even numbers and roughly equally organized zergs. And that to me, sounds pretty freakin' cool.

With presumably 30 second capture times on bunkers neighbored by enough friendly hexes, there's room for spec ops/commando teams yet, they'll just be sticking closer to the battlefront and being the heroes that made the difference this time.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Thanks Hamma! Appreciate the extra info. As I already mentioned... Bases have kind of a been a black hole of information :)

[Ratstomper]

Anybody coming here with a PS1 mentality is probably because 90% of the people here play/played PS1 and liked it (more or less). Therefore, the logical follow up, is they lean towards wanting more of that. Them wanting the "old ways" is just as legitimate as you wanting "new ways". And people who liked a certain thing are generally just as "right" as somebody who doesn't like a certain thing.

I played PS1 for years and I really like the new bases. They look better. They feel less like a "genericmilitarybase.mod" model and more like actual facilities. Having larger courtyards (or none at all) will put more emphasis on player created defense, such as mines, remote detonated traps and ambushes and vehicle lines rather than just a wall to shoot from is more like a real war.

...and that's awesome. :D

[Klockan]

In an FPS the best defense isn't walls in every direction, the best defense is quickly respawning soldiers in defensive positions. Vehicles don't stand a chance against infantry in close quarters and Zurvan is no exception. Infantry on the ground is easily picked off by infantry on the walls, doesn't matter if they are inside the compound or outside. I'd say that to take Zurvan in an actual battle you need twice the number of soldiers of the opposition if you zerg it. Remember that at E3 all 3 factions fought at the same location, defending against 2 at the same time is hard. Then each faction also had a nearby spawn location which could spawn all sorts of vehicles, normally you would spawn twice as far away and without all vehicles available.

Edit: Even in the E3 demo the vehicles didn't even get close to the capturable locations, they got to the courtyard but from there on it gets really vehicle unfriendly with tons of obstacles and stairs. If you look at this you see that the courtyard buildings acts as a wall that you can hide behind while the attackers will have to cross that wide open space where they will easily get picked off unless they use something like a sunderer to transport the infantry. Tanks are no use in the urban environment after the open field and infantry wont survive the open field.
Planetside 2 E3 Stream - Day 3 - (feat. Totalbiscuit and Margaret Krohn) - YouTube
Then all capturable locations lies within infantry friendly terrain, one is even impossible to get to with vehicles. So I don't see how this don't provide a huge defender advantage.

[IgloGlass]

I want walls! Mostly because I'll probably play Light Assault and I want to jump over them!

[JxP]

I like how the original X-Com game handled base fights. You had all the different functions you could fight around like the labs, hangar, and barracks areas. It didn't server much purpose other than cover, but it really helped immersion!

*edit* I also like walls and sliding doors!

[GuyShep]

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2705/dqcrp.jpg

Schoolhouse Rock - Elbow Room - YouTube

[SgtExo]

^^^^ LOL!

[kaffis]

I played PS1 for years and I really like the new bases. They look better. They feel less like a "genericmilitarybase.mod" model and more like actual facilities. Having larger courtyards (or none at all) will put more emphasis on player created defense, such as mines, remote detonated traps and ambushes and vehicle lines rather than just a wall to shoot from is more like a real war.

...and that's awesome. :D
This this this.

Instead of planting mines at the gate, now you have to lay tank traps to funnel traffic how you want to.

Instead of sitting on the walls or a tower to snipe, now you find a cluster of rocks to make into a sniper's nest.

Instead of an almost instantaneous transfer of control of the courtyard when the walls are breached, now there will be constant give and take in the much more open, loosely defined "courtyard" between spaced-out buildings that each have objectives under different empires' control. Tank battles will happen *inside* the new courtyards, instead of outside the base to protect the gates.

And all that is hellaciously exciting.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

HAha! Elbow room :P

[MrBloodworth]

You can have wide hallways and doors, and still be defensible.

What we have now appears to be arena style bases on a contiguous map.


That's the problem.

[Ratstomper]

You can have wide hallways and doors, and still be defensible.

What we have now appears to be arena style bases on a contiguous map.


That's the problem.

I would say that the old style of bases were more like arena style maps; walled off with few entrances. The way they are now makes the defense perimeter flow into the surrounding area itself; drawing attention away from hard obstacles and allowing more defensive logistics and tactics. Now it may be advisable to actually have warfare between bases. Set up tanks on a ridge to fire on incoming forces to your facility. Have engineers and infantry lay boomers and set up ambushes among those outlying buildings. Make the attackers use tactics to push in instead of just doing the same old thing to break into that hard shell you see every single time you have to take a base.

In PS1 it was: Take the CY or hold the CY, take the lobby or hold the lobby, take the CC/gen or hold the CC/gen. Things are much more freeform now and that makes for better, more dynamic gameplay.

[Raymac]

You can have wide hallways and doors, and still be defensible.

What we have now appears to be arena style bases on a contiguous map.


That's the problem.

Enclosing the bases with walls will be far more "arena" than leaving them more open the the huge wide world. The first picture from the OP would make base assaults literally 1 arena after another.

[MrBloodworth]

Arena has nothing to do with walls or not. Its the difference of multiple ways to traverse the map and no choke points.

IE: Quake VS. Omaha Beach.

[Raymac]

Arena has nothing to do with walls or not. Its the difference of multiple ways to traverse the map and no choke points.

IE: Quake VS. Omaha Beach.

I'm sorry. I don't follow. You do want choke points, or you don't want choke points?
It looks to me like there are plenty of choke points and kill zones in that base.

[Ratstomper]

Arena has nothing to do with walls or not. Its the difference of multiple ways to traverse the map and no choke points.

IE: Quake VS. Omaha Beach.

There are choke points, they just aren't doors that 20 guys can point their guns at because it's one of only three doors into the base.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I support the more open areas. I just wish the actual interiors of the buildings had a little more substance.

[Otleaz]

Enclosing the bases with walls will be far more "arena" than leaving them more open the the huge wide world. The first picture from the OP would make base assaults literally 1 arena after another.

I don't think you understand what walled combat is. It doesn't just delay some inevitable deathmatch, it completely changes the pace of the battle.

This is still the case.

[Aberdash]

I have the feeling a lot of people here are arguing just for the sake of arguing. We already know some bases will be similar to those in ps1 and others will be open.

[Raymac]

This is still the case.

I do comprende, amigo. Explain to me then what a wall would do that the barriers we see (i.e. rocky hills, buildings) don't do. You make it sound like the base is sitting in the middle of a Kansas cornfield with no barriers at all. Are you really that in love with a "prison" design that you can't see the barriers around the base?

[Erendil]

I do comprende, amigo. Explain to me then what a wall would do that the barriers we see (i.e. rocky hills, buildings) don't do. You make it sound like the base is sitting in the middle of a Kansas cornfield with no barriers at all. Are you really that in love with a "prison" design that you can't see the barriers around the base?

A base wall would give you a defensible position right next to some permanent spawn points (barracks), the vterms, and most importantly the capture points themselves. My concern is that people trying to set up Maginot line defenses away from the cap points and closer to the edge of the territory where there are natural bottlenecks in the terrain will just get circumvented by groups of players in aircraft, who will use those same terrain features to avoid those bottleneck defenses and continue on the the base itself.

In addition, on Indar specifically, from what I recall of the terrain from the GDC and other vids, only the southeast section of the map seems to contain such steep, bottlenecking terrain features. The Southwest area looked to be much more open rolling hills with numerous small and medium rocky outcroppings and occasional buttes sticking up from the surrounding savannah, but didn't seem to provided nearly as many major rough terrain features to act as natural defensive lines. And I believe the area up north is a much flatter desert area. So I don't think natural barriers are going to be that prominent over a good portion of the map.

I don't know about Otleaz, but I personally don't think that completely surrounding the large bases with walls is needed to make them defensible. In fact I'm guessing that first pic in the OP probably had its walls torn down because the Devs found the base too easily defendible when completely enclosed like that.

Those sections of walls at Zurvan look to be pretty defensible positions by themselves. They're high enough to give pretty good protection from attacking ground forces. They have a pretty solid roof to provide cover from aircraft. And they have numerous wall turrets as well.

If they could give the base barracks protected, underground access to those wall battlements as well as similar protected access to vterms, I think even an open design like Zurvan could be pretty defendible. That didn't look to be the case from the E3 footage, though.

[Chronic]

I remember seeing this a long time ago and thought it looked great. A better improved PS1 base with buildings inside, etc. Now what im seeing is not like that at all, they gotten rid of the walls and sheilds and just better placement of things imo. Now looks more like team deathmatch as people here have been mentioning.

Maybe, im hopeing is that we have not heard all the infomation about upgrading bases, that would call from space and help fortify your base.
I remember Smedley pointing out the landing feet on that building in the first reveal.

Well see with coming soon beta i guess, can't wait.

Who cares?

[GLaDOS]

Maybe this has been mentioned or disproved before, I didn't have the time/patience to read the whole thread, and if it is, sorry about that.

I'm not really sure, but it looks like the Biolab is a pretty enclosed base type, although I could be very wrong, not having seen much of it at all.