Man the forts! Aka, we're besieged.

[Symmenix]

Hello all. This thread is basically introducing sieging and holding to people in PS2. The idea pretty much is simply about holding a fort for as long as possible, and having such a pure lookout/ defense that the enemy cannot advance.

Or it could go the other way. If your attacking these well held forts, it'd obviously take a while.

Pretty much I want to see epic large fights that last for hours, not some guy going Rambo CoD on us.

This happened in PS1, but in a different format.

So here's the question: How many of you would be willing to siege/hold?

[Rivenshield]

/raises hand

The TR is famous for its five-hour red alerts. I want to see this proud tradition continue.

[willaguy]

This type of thing should happen automatically.

[p0intman]

Bring a red alert at me or go home. Base defenses are some of my favorite stuff, as are last minute resecures.

[Duckforceone]

I'm a support player at heart, so i'm used to waiting around awhile...

i love defending for a long while, or laying siege for a long while... :D

[Symmenix]

This type of thing should happen automatically.
Indeed.

[ringring]

Of course :D

[Daemonn]

If PS2 doesn't have base/tower sieges it wouldn't be right to call it Planetside...

[Pyreal]

Base design will have a large impact whether or not defense is possible.

[Littleman]

If PS2 doesn't have base/tower sieges it wouldn't be right to call it Planetside...

Indeed, it'd be called Planetside 2.

Base layouts might turn the siege meta-game into more of a game of trading hack points constantly, but we'll see when we get the chance.

[PrivateBadass]

I would love to be a part of guard duty on a specific base, even before an full on assault, and report back if there is a large force headed our way.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I would hope it's still in... base sieges were some of the best content in the game.

[Tehroth]

Currently from what we have been told Bases are more of a arena type of thing, sure it has cannons and stuff, but its not really a heavily defensible position. Hopefully engineers can spruce that up a bit putting shield walls and turrents down.

[Kitsune]

I'm no Ps1 player but I'd be willing to stand around for hours as long as there's someone to talk to. Course we would be like those comedy relief henchmen, just chatting about silly random stuff just to get killed a second later.

"So did you see that new recruit that just joined? Totally a babe."
"Why do you instantly think every person who plays a girl is one in real life?"
"Dude, we are stuck in first person, there's no butt to look at, so hence, it must be a babe. And anyway, if they were guys, then every other guy would be looking at their avatar's assets, and that would just be uncomfortable."
"You mean as uncomfortable as a real woman being gawked at?"
"No man, this is totally different..."

Feels like a mini series of Red Vs Blue.

[SixShooter]

This will definitly happen. It will be a bit more interesting with the facilities that use the ticket system since once you successsfully defend a base the attacking force has to start all over again. It will be cool to see how many "facilty defended" messages you can pull off in single massive battle.

[noxious]

It sounds like one of their objectives with the design of the bases and the game in general is to reduce the tendency for fights to stagnate and turn into stalemates.

I welcome the new direction.

[Landtank]

I enjoy the epic battles that result from a base siege, I hope they are in, but with a reduced focus on camping and clusterfuck-hallways/stairs. I think everyone agrees with that.

[Daemonn]

Indeed, it'd be called Planetside 2.

Base layouts might turn the siege meta-game into more of a game of trading hack points constantly, but we'll see when we get the chance.

I was saying it wouldn't be right to even use the name planetside in the title if the game was without base sieges... Sorry if that went over your head lol.

And perhaps organized play will bring 5-10 people guarding each point, calling out incomings and back up - less point swapping but alas, soon we will know for ourselves.

[Symmenix]

Drop in spawns will make defending a bit more difficult, to say the least.

[Landtank]

Drop in spawns will make defending a bit more difficult, to say the least.

5 minute cooldowns should atleast help take care of that :P

[GreatMazinkaise]

5 minute cooldowns should atleast help take care of that :P

Likewise the dynamic SOI's that lockout Galaxy deployment and pod dropzones.

[QuantumMechanic]

I'd hear people complaining about long drawn-out base defense battles in PS1 all the time. I love that stuff. And I'm more than willing to do it again in PS2.

[AzureWatcher]

I've never played Planetside 1, but I love the idea of logging off for the night and waking up to see the battle still raging.

I've experienced some of that with World of Warcraft's old Alterac Valley and Guild Wars 2's WvW sieges. But nothing on an FPS. Seems like it could be very, very fun.

[The Loverator]

So here's the question: How many of you would be willing to siege/hold?


A strange Question somehow, 'cause naturally everyone will be willing to attack or defend huge Base's. It appear's of where it is at best possible, to attack Enemy Troops.
If you need to only fire at a large Swarm of People who are all about to run into a Facility, you will likely do that.

If you need to just shoot all you have into Lines of People who try to block the Way into a Facility, you will likely do that, too - and very important will the Places be just before a huge Bunch of Troop's get out of Range for bigger Weapon's.

Means - if a Enemy Group of Attackers is already in a Base, you cannot shoot well with Vehicles at them anymore - or Rocket Launchers.



Or other said: Against many, quick Attackers - only a huge Count of Defenders can manage to act in Time to prevent the Attackers reach their Goal. Means, many People WILL have to react very fast and flexible, otherwise Troop Movements at the needed Scale will not be possible.

Well, in the End,
it's impossible to defend certain, single Points all the Time anyway - or even if one Faction can - the other(s) Faction(s) will surely attack other Points then - when the Defense at one Point is to tight closed off.


The huge Mapsize's and the limited Numbers of Players for every Side will ensure that anyway ^^




greetings, LV. :wave:

[Momember]

I've clocked over 150 hours as Engie in TF2 tight defending and sneeky combat engie are my forte be lucky Im an ally or prey you dont come against me or you might just find yourself ganked. :p

[Shade Millith]

Going to be blunt.

From what I've seen of the footage, very little suggests that bases are going to be anything more than deathmatch like arena's.

I hope this isn't the case, but right now I'm not holding my breath. The bases seen are not defensible.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

I thought the whole point of the base redesigns and them being far more open was to reduce the occurence of 'Interfarms', where the only (because lets face it, routers into the basement only worked because people were too lazy to properly defend against them 90% of the time, ie camp the basement whilst everyone else is having fun killing) thing that could result in an attackers victory, was draining the base.

[jepaul]

This is an appropriate response.

This type of thing should happen automatically.

This makes me want to do this:

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvwvnmuxBt1qgca7t.gif

To this comment:

Pretty much I want to see epic large fights that last for hours, not some guy going Rambo CoD on us.

How in gods name are there not going to be long "siege" battles and long "defenses" of forts in this game. What the hell will we be doing all game?

[Figment]

The way the bases are layed out right now - at least the ones we've seen - are not built around defense.

The walls that are there remind me most of the Maginot line in WWII:

Why bother storming and taking the huge defensive stronghold bits of a base if you can also ignore them completely?

[Symmenix]

^this

[GreatMazinkaise]

The way the bases are layed out right now - at least the ones we've seen - are not built around defense.

The walls that are there remind me most of the Maginot line in WWII:

Why bother storming and taking the huge defensive stronghold bits of a base if you can also ignore them completely?

Yeah, Zurvan's got two massive walls to the south and what looks like the public entrance of Hewlett Packard to the north. It's somewhat defensible in the sense that there's some cover on that end, but you can't stop vehicles from cruising right on in to your garage.

[SgtExo]

They did mention in the AGN yesterday that their will likely be generators and shields to stop vehicles just rolling in. So until the game is out or that beta is a couple of months in, I think we will be constantly seeing new things that add to the base capture gameplay. All you guys have to do is ask or suggest more mechanics and the devs will test the ones that seem like the most feasible.

I personally want to have sieges, but just shooting at the same area in a corridor does not sound fun to me. So anything to make siege long, but still dynamic is a plus.

[Noivad]

The game we have seen thus far has only been at most 180 people at e3. The game dynamics will change whan a server is full with 2000 people. I don't think anyone, not even the devs can fully comprehend that number in a FPS battle untill we actually see it happen. Its never been done before has it. If you only had a battle with just 500 people on one side at one base and the rest of the 1500 spread out along the front, it will be epic. And if its one base that all three empires want - Each Just 500 of their 2000 players that will be 1000 attackers against 500 defenders. Now thats going to be a defense. With 25 people on each tower on what 3 different levels, with the rest inside the base or scattered about the outside. Yea I can see seige battles happening. There will be breakfulls and push backs. heck the area being so big it might even be easier then PS1 to defend a base. Solo players will not really know whats going on within the big scale of things. But the Organized outfits, with their specialties, in an alliance with multiple outfits. That will decide the defense or offence. There will be some outfits that specialize in Reaction Team game play to squash the enemy break throughs, and there will be outfits designed to make the pushes out. Just like PS1, just on a bigger scale. Can't wait. :evil:

[Landtank]

Yeah, Zurvan's got two massive walls to the south and what looks like the public entrance of Hewlett Packard to the north. It's somewhat defensible in the sense that there's some cover on that end, but you can't stop vehicles from cruising right on in to your garage.

We can stop them with a blockade! ITS FOOLPROOF

[DukeTerror]

We only saw a fairly centralized base at E3. Perhaps the ones closer to warpgates get more walls built around them. Having to hold the majority of 5-7 points for a base vs 1 point doesn't make it any less of a siege. It just solves the cramped hallway issue and puts you at a panic as you have to decide to hold your point or reinforce the one you just lost. A real siege dilemma.

Also, look up Alamo history. Davy Crockett and his boys held the gap in the wall quite well during that siege. It lends a opportunity to a great squad or outfit to grab a couple of sunderers and fill up a gap in the wall. People shoot from the sundy's turrets or between the gaps while CE's furiously repair the trucks from behind ever fearful of infiltrators or jumpers. Could be real exciting if they make the sundy's tough enough. This is why I don't mind if some bases are not fully walled, it won't stop the TR from holding.

[GreatMazinkaise]

It's not a gap in the wall that is a problem; the entire north half of the base is wide open for attack...

[Littleman]

Between how the hex system works and the open designs of structures, territory, including bases, seems designed to fall to a sufficient attack force.

If your side isn't fighting like they're on the offense, they will lose. Attack. Attack. ATTACK!

As an example, with hack points in a base turning in just 5 minutes due to the enemy controlling adjacent hexes, both sides will likely be trading points until a victor is determined once a set goal has been reached (if any.) If one side were to surround the base with their hexes, then their opponents might be looking at 30 minute long hack-conversion times on points in the base. They'd have to re-prioritize re-obtaining their lost hexes to have a semblance of a chance at taking the base.

As an aside, the hex system also encourages players to engage the enemy in the field AWAY from their base to prevent them from getting to it at all. If we're going to adopt the PS1 mentality where we just focus on hopping from base to base, we're asking to get steamrolled by the guys that are taking everything and fight to keep it.

[Rivenshield]

Between how the hex system works and the open designs of structures, territory, including bases, seems designed to fall to a sufficient attack force.

If your side isn't fighting like they're on the offense, they will lose. Attack. Attack. ATTACK!

I hope that isn't the case for more than half the bases. There ought to be somewhere you can down stakes and make a goddam stand.

[Littleman]

I hope that isn't the case for more than half the bases. There ought to be somewhere you can down stakes and make a goddam stand.

Make sure they don't surround your base and bring the better force.

I wouldn't expect solid walls on most if any bases, not on Indar anyway. Another continent may feature every base as having solid structural walls/rock walls/cliff sides, because then every base (local to the imperial footholds) could be designed that way and it would be balanced.

But again, this game shouldn't be fought over JUST bases. The best defense won't be a solid wall and a lot of people raining hell down upon their enemies from it; if you think that you're already gunning to lose. The best defense is making sure the enemy never gets a hex adjacent to your base in the first place. Competing for control points in the field and constantly pushing and pushing and pushing and denying them even an inch of soil is the best possible defense your empire could put up. It will work like base conflicts did in PS1 where the distance between bases wasn't too great, but to a measurable effect. And if the effect can be measured, people may be willing to fight over any stretch of land, no matter how far apart the bases are.

Currently, bases are central hubs for an army to gather and deploy from, but they're open enough that we won't run into PS1's common issue of the enemy taking the courtyard and it just being a matter of time before the bad guys push their way into the structure. Really, that was the REAL problem with PS1's bases, not the walls.

Many breaks in the walls make for hotly contested arenas with infantry, armor, and aircraft combat galore. Solid walls (artificial or natural) make them penned arenas where we should expect strong infantry and aerial fighting until the gate shields are down, if they even get shields. Remember, generators will be all over the base, powering various pieces of equipment, so it's a very real possibility.

But a god damn stand as you put it? Refer to my first point: Hold the territory BEYOND your base. You're doing it wrong if you're only fighting AT your base (or any base.) Bringing the PS1 mentality of what's worth fighting over won't do anyone any good, and I have been seeing a great abundance of that kind of mentality from PSU goers. Makes me look forward to the current base layouts, actually, as I hope they'll break one's mentality when they realize it's much easier to hold a base if their enemies can't take a point in the base within 5 minutes of hacking it. I fear, however, this will take some time before the "spec ops" play this smart, and then everyone else eventually catches on.

[Symmenix]

For me, i was merelyneondering if you guys would if it came down to it.
Also, arial bombing should be extremely effective..

[Klockan]

The way the bases are layed out right now - at least the ones we've seen - are not built around defense.

The walls that are there remind me most of the Maginot line in WWII:

Why bother storming and taking the huge defensive stronghold bits of a base if you can also ignore them completely?
How can you the huge defensive strongholds when 67% of the capture points lies right next to them? And the last capture point lies inside the base which also gives the defenders the advantage since it is much easier to defend than to attack as infantry.