Bridges - I like them, but is there a point to them?

[Kipper]

I've just watched the video in the TB tower thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=47017) and wanted to talk about bridges, in particular:

I like what I see in the video - I think everything is going to be a lot less samey with potential for varied types of combat inside and around facilities and just out in the open too.

Bridges concerns me slightly though - I love a good bridge battle, they can get pretty epic as you try to cross, or stop people from crossing what is often something with very little cover and very few places to hide on it. You can try and flank the enemy by either finding what's usually long way round, or by a risky air drop where most people will die but you might end up being lucky and taking out some or all of the defenders, to allow your side to cross.

So here's the concern. Few to none of these bridges appear to span anything that's actually impassable - so why am I going to fight to cross a bridge when it looks as though 95% of the time, I can just walk/take a vehicle down into a small ravine and up the other side? How am I going to defend a bridge (and why would I bother) when denying the use of it to my enemy isn't slowing them down or forcing them to use a significantly longer route or air units to get to where they want?

To me, it seems they need either some water, or at the very least, some steep edges so that if you're in the canyon, you can't drive a vehicle back out of it - maybe with some that are short enough to allow LA to jump out, but some shouldn't be - these canyons should be areas that you don't generally want to be in if you're trying just to get to the other side, imo. (but you might want to be in if you're wanting to get to wherever it leads without being seen).

Also - although I'm not in beta and haven't seen all the streams - it would seem (at least so far) that there are no hexes that are defined by strategically important bridges - as in, a couple of buildings; maybe a vehicle pad or spawn but where the main feature is a bridge with one or several capture points.

And finally - It may be nice to see if you could take out a bridge, either as you retreat from one you lost, or as a strategic play to cut off reinforcements to another facility your faction is attacking/defending. Of course they should self repair slowly, and/or have the option for engineers to bring them back up - but this is one piece of destructible environment that I think would enhance the strategic side.

[Boone]

Seemed to be put in their for nostalgia from the looks of it. There is so much we haven't seen though.

[Crazyduckling]

The one bridge in TBs video did seem a bit short, but on the map, you could clearly see one that was much much longer. Look at 17:07.

[Hosp]

*Puts on Tinfoil Helmet*

I think many people seem to be forgetting that we only have details about 1 continent. To my knowledge, only 1 continent is playing in Beta. So, why have any green space in what should otherwise be a desert continent?

My Theory: The devs needed a test continent to try out different terrains and base placements w/o releasing all the continents. Enter Indar. Desert Flats, Rocky Canyons, Rolling Hills and a little bit of other stuff in between.

The fact they could go "Hey, lets put this in the release" is merely a useful byproduct of their test continent. Because they can see how people are interacting with the bases and terrains in the various zones on Indar, they can better make Amerish and Esamir, and based on those + Indar after release, can better make more continents down the line.

*Removes Tinfoil Helmet*

As you were.

[Sledgecrushr]

To get from one side of the plateau to the next.

[AThreatToYou]

Bridges are FRIGGIN COOL BRAH. What more reason do you need to have them, fight over them, and want them? I mean, really. They are cool. Take them.

[Comet]

Some bridges do seem to serve no purpose. There are some that do fulfil the role of an actual bridge however and that you'll want to fight over. Judging from some Higby streams anyway. We'll see once we all get in beta.

[Blackwolf]

That ravine looked pretty impassible to me. In the 2 hour beta streams with Higby, they fought around that bridge trying to take the base that over looks it from the VS. There was only narrow passage that lead up the ravine on the east side that lead towards the VS base. On foot and in a vehicle, that terrain is a nightmare and it can be hard to see that without actually being there.

That ravine is very big, something that is lost in TB's video because he spends more of his time flying around the area and not walking around it.

The bridge itself has a support structure underneath it that you can get into and shoot at people in the ravine from. It's also wide enough for 2 Vanguards to drive down side by side, possibly 3, and still plenty of room for infantry to take cover and take shots at said Vanguards. In addition to the underside of the bridge, you have the top side which you can get to with jump packs or possibly on foot, allowing you to shoot down at those crossing the bridge. The bridge in that scene also provides excellent cover for snipers hitting the ridgeline around the nearby base, which itself is a very tough base to take because it involves a steep climb around a bend through a narrow passage that is easily defensible.

[Memeotis]

Unless they span across water, bridges aren't supposed to be bottlenecks. They're supposed to be territory that, if you hold it, will allow you to streamline ground transport and reinforcement. They can be, but they're not intended to be places just for combat.

[Kipper]

Bridges are FRIGGIN COOL BRAH. What more reason do you need to have them, fight over them, and want them? I mean, really. They are cool. Take them.

Agreed to that, the concerns are twofold:

1. Bridge needs to be a significantly quicker way from point A to point B to make it worth fighting over.

2. Bridge needs to span something you can't just walk across to make it so that to take the bridge, you have to cross the bridge. Air drops are valid to get troops across, as are (in some, but not all cases for variety) LA jumps or even quad jumps - but allowing people to walk/drive down one side of a ravine and back up the other in next to no time renders the bridge pointless. Given the danger involved in doing so, why would you try to cross it? (and as a defender, you're meant to be able to understand where the main zerg attack is likely to come from).

In the TB video, the bridge around 16/17 minutes appeared (from what I saw) to span a very shallow dip which looked like you could cross it anywhere, or just walk around it for the sake of a few seconds. To have value, a bridge needs to take off a couple of minutes travel time.

Some bridges do seem to serve no purpose. There are some that do fulfil the role of an actual bridge however and that you'll want to fight over. Judging from some Higby streams anyway. We'll see once we all get in beta.

That's good to know! I haven't watched all the higby streams, there's starting to be more footage than I have time to sit and watch, so I've not seen everything you guys have.

[Stardouser]

There's no point to them without water. The videos look like Indar is a dry continent and when that happens you can just let your vehicles/etc fall down into the canyons somewhere, and then find a place to get back up. Perhaps the other continents will have water and will provide a purpose to bridges.

[Boone]

There's no point to them without water. The videos look like Indar is a dry continent and when that happens you can just let your vehicles/etc fall down into the canyons somewhere, and then find a place to get back up. Perhaps the other continents will have water and will provide a purpose to bridges.

I think the bridge serves it purpose with what you just described :D. Not sure why a bridge needs water around it to be useful.

[SeanNewBoy]

The bridge in the 8-08 video crossed a ravine that would take minutes to cross on foot, and possibly not at all by ground vehicle, im not sure about MAX'es. Im a big fan of combined arms, if anything worthwile was on the other side of that bridge, i would rather have the bridge than just take the air route. Any large force should be able to get to a destination at nearly the same time.

[Traenor]

I certainly agree that there probably isnt much sense in bridges for infrantry. However, since bridges often span sizeable ravines as far as i can see, it is very important if you want MBT´s and sunderers over.

[Crator]

Don't forget guys. This is just Indar. There very well could be bridges that you MUST cross (no other way around it except to cross it). And again, we've only seen specific parts of Indar via the videos too.

[Kipper]

Don't forget guys. This is just Indar. There very well could be bridges that you MUST cross (no other way around it except to cross it). And again, we've only seen specific parts of Indar via the videos too.

I'm fine with having alternative routes - otherwise you could end up concentrating the entire zerg around one bridge which might cause a few lag issues.

It just needs to be that in order to be worth fighting for, the bridge must save some travel time; a couple of minutes might be the right amount - otherwise the risk/reward for crossing it would be out of balance.

Bridges are meant to be natural chokepoints that give a defensive advantage, not just look pretty.

[Mystwalker]

i also think they said water isnt in yet as in they are not happy with the water they made could be some rivers are meant to be there somewhere but only the devs know

[Trafalgar]

Unless they span across water, bridges aren't supposed to be bottlenecks. They're supposed to be territory that, if you hold it, will allow you to streamline ground transport and reinforcement. They can be, but they're not intended to be places just for combat.

You know how you have mountains that you can't walk up in most games*? Yeah. Build a fortress on a mountain, or dig a big chasm around it, and use a bridge to connect it to the land. Ta-da. Then you'd have to charge the bridge or pray you can suppress the enemy's AA long enough to airdrop troops in.

Surrounding it with water would just make it possible to drive magriders across.

* Aside from TES games, where you can jumpstrafe up them all.

[Duskguy]

...could always stack tanks in a ravine to build a bridge another tank can drive over :P

seriously and on topic though, i believe there will be both useless bridges or at least mostly useless as well as bridges that are th main way across ravines. as others said, thisis only one continent they are letting people play on.

[sgtbjack]

Take Bridge=2 minute walk straight to another spawn point/outpost

Don't take Bridge=10 minutes of skirting low ground where your in danger of flanking fire from elevated positions.

Plus, some of those wilds/lower areas seem to be full of boulders and crud that would leave tank drivers trying to take an alternate route stabbing their eyes with a fork in frustration every time they get stuck between rocks and what nots.

[Harasus]

Did TB not get stuck on the way up? Vehicles would have even more trouble with that. Essentially, some infantry MIGHT get up on the sides, but vehicles would have to go across the bridge if they do not want to go a fair way around. Plus, the lack of cover would be a horrific experience if there are a couple of snipers, HA (With rocket launchers) and tanks guarding that area.

[kidwithstick]

Big bridge fights were some of the best fights in planetside... why would you not want that in ps2?

[RawketLawnchair]

So I'm guessing most of you here have any strategic battlefield experience.
Bridges separate one area from the next so that it is more difficult to get armor from one place to another. Pretty simple idea.

[Rivenshield]

Take Bridge=2 minute walk straight to another spawn point/outpost

Don't take Bridge=10 minutes of skirting low ground where your in danger of flanking fire from elevated positions.

Plus, some of those wilds/lower areas seem to be full of boulders and crud that would leave tank drivers trying to take an alternate route stabbing their eyes with a fork in frustration every time they get stuck between rocks and what nots.

This, all of it. Bridges are a convenience. They're also a potential bottleneck. Even if they're short and straddle terrain that is merely rough -- as opposed to impassable -- they create a lot of fun gameplay.

[RoninOni]

:huh:

Of COURSE their's value to bridges.... There's a reason why they've ALWAYS been points of conflict in every major war ya know....

It affords the controlling faction/nation the use of the bridge while denying it to the enemy.

[Kipper]

For those that are posting as though this thread is about not wanting bridges, please READ THE THREAD (or at least the original post, since its clear you haven't and are responding to the subject line only).

I'm not even suggesting that the bridges over shallow/rough terrain won't be fun to play on.

What I'm suggesting is that there's no incentive to try and cross the actual bridge, if you can cross whatever it spans just as easily, given that being on the bridge is more likely to get you killed by mines, snipers, run over by vehicles etc.

[Makkah]

Bottlenecks are good.

[RoninOni]

For those that are posting as though this thread is about not wanting bridges, please READ THE THREAD (or at least the original post, since its clear you haven't and are responding to the subject line only).

I'm not even suggesting that the bridges over shallow/rough terrain won't be fun to play on.

What I'm suggesting is that there's no incentive to try and cross the actual bridge, if you can cross whatever it spans just as easily, given that being on the bridge is more likely to get you killed by mines, snipers, run over by vehicles etc.

Bridges are mostly for ground vehicles... not infantry.

Infantry can often find other ways across MUCH easier than vehicles... which may need to go 20-30 minutes around... Infantry can clamber down and up steeper slopes with narrow foot paths that vehicles simply can't do.

A bridge across a chasm is an excellent example.

[Duskguy]

Bridges are mostly for ground vehicles... not infantry.

Infantry can often find other ways across MUCH easier than vehicles... which may need to go 20-30 minutes around... Infantry can clamber down and up steeper slopes with narrow foot paths that vehicles simply can't do.

A bridge across a chasm is an excellent example.

is it me, or is everyone here misunderstanding the OP?

he is saying that he feels the birdges dont seem to create bottlenecks.
he is saying that the ground around the bridges in the videos look plenty navigatable, making them pointless
he wasnt actually asking what bridges are for in general, he was asking what is the point in PS2 if you can easily go around.

if indeed the ground is as navigatable as they appear then tanks could go around/under the bridge and get across as easily as going over the bridge. and if it is like that, why have the bridge there at all. <-- THIS is what OP wants to know.

if i was the one misinterpreting OP, disregard this, but i think i'm right

[Toppopia]

is it me, or is everyone here misunderstanding the OP?

he is saying that he feels the birdges dont seem to create bottlenecks.
he is saying that the ground around the bridges in the videos look plenty navigatable, making them pointless
he wasnt actually asking what bridges are for in general, he was asking what is the point in PS2 if you can easily go around.

if indeed the ground is as navigatable as they appear then tanks could go around/under the bridge and get across as easily as going over the bridge. and if it is like that, why have the bridge there at all. <-- THIS is what OP wants to know.

if i was the one misinterpreting OP, disregard this, but i think i'm right

Well. You seem correct. And from what i have seen, going around looks like its quite hard and you could get stuck very often. So bridges look like they will be really needed in a battle. So make sure to keep it clear at all times.

[RoninOni]

is it me, or is everyone here misunderstanding the OP?

he is saying that he feels the birdges dont seem to create bottlenecks.
he is saying that the ground around the bridges in the videos look plenty navigatable, making them pointless
he wasnt actually asking what bridges are for in general, he was asking what is the point in PS2 if you can easily go around.

if indeed the ground is as navigatable as they appear then tanks could go around/under the bridge and get across as easily as going over the bridge. and if it is like that, why have the bridge there at all. <-- THIS is what OP wants to know.

if i was the one misinterpreting OP, disregard this, but i think i'm right

I saw a Galaxy landed and parked as an infantry spawner beneath a bridge, but the bridge was most DEFINITELY still being fought over.

I can't imagine the attackers trying that hard if it was so easy to go around.....

People zerg... but I don't think they could be THAT stupid.... :huh:

Getting a vehicle down INTO the canyon is relatively easy... getting it out can only be at certain points

[SixShooter]

if indeed the ground is as navigatable as they appear then tanks could go around/under the bridge and get across as easily as going over the bridge. and if it is like that, why have the bridge there at all. <-- THIS is what OP wants to know.


I think it seems pretty obvious from the videos that some of these places are not as easy to navigate/go under/around, that's why the bridge is there.

I would be more than happy to stand at the top of a ridge lobbing AV fire down at you guys while you try to scale a canyon wall with a vehicle. Cheap kills from stuck drivers that did not use the bridge makes kittens smile :).

[Revanmug]

I think it seems pretty obvious from the videos that some of these places are not as easy to navigate/go under/around, that's why the bridge is there.

I would be more than happy to stand at the top of a ridge lobbing AV fire down at you guys while you try to scale a canyon wall with a vehicle. Cheap kills from stuck drivers that did not use the bridge makes kittens smile :).

Indeed. Not sure where this idea that the bridge is useless since people can cross it under it. Hell, Higby had problem climbing at several area as an infantry so don't even bother with a tank...

Can you cross that canyon farther away without the need of the bridge? Yeah sure but that require more time and it is a lot less direct to the tower that was sitting next to bridge meaning to possibility to get kill before getting there is higher.

What is wrong with that?

[Duskguy]

i dont think there is anything wrong with hard to get out of ravines under the bridge, and i dont think the OP does either. i have only watched the first live stream fr the closed beta, so i cant speak for what the bridges and ravines look like, and OP said he hasnt seen all the streams, so he cant comment on all of them.

if the ravines are hard to get out of, good, and i would say that would answer this whole thread.

[SpcFarlen]

I think it seems pretty obvious from the videos that some of these places are not as easy to navigate/go under/around, that's why the bridge is there.

I would be more than happy to stand at the top of a ridge lobbing AV fire down at you guys while you try to scale a canyon wall with a vehicle. Cheap kills from stuck drivers that did not use the bridge makes kittens smile :).

Exactly.


From the looks of it there only seemed to be two ways on that one side of the base besides the bridge. A narrow ravine on the left, doubt many vehicles like a Sunderer or MBT could use. Or the road on the right, which brought you up closer to the base and that has its own issues.

Many bridges may not have a real reason for being there other than just... to bridge two points (ironic eh?). Not everything in a game needs to have a specific purpose like getting from A-B faster or A-B safer.

[RoninOni]

Not everything in a game needs to have a specific purpose like getting from A-B faster or A-B safer.

Not to over criticize...

But the bridge is there precisely in order to facilitate getting from A-B faster :groovy:

Just nitpicking though :lol:

I agree with everything you're saying.

[MaxDamage]

Bridges occur when critical mass of love is achieved.
Cher, Chrissie Hynde & Neneh Cherry With Eric Clapton - Love Can Build A Bridge Music Video © 1995 - YouTube

[Ertwin]

It might just be a psychological thing. When presented with a bridge, most people will take it regardless of the spanning terrain. It's just a subtle way to guide players. Lore wise the bridge is probably just there for ease of transport.

[Eggy]

is it me, or is everyone here misunderstanding the OP?


You are correct. Its a combination of this being the internet and also planetside. You dont need to read the OP to respond, plus its cool to get your post count up it doesnt matter if your post has any relevance. Its even better if you just repost what someone else has written in CAPS or pretty colours, this proves you have leadership skills.

Bridge battles in PS1 were fun. Bridge battles in PS2 will be fun.

[andehh]

I remember some epic bridge battles from PS1, I would be very disappointed for them to be diluted down by just walking through the ditch the bridge spans.

Really fun watching people try and rush across the bridge supported by FF over their heads to clear a path through them.

[Hamma]

Squad spawn makes it so bridges aren't as big of a deal sadly. This may change though, Higby has already mentioned squad beacons instead of squad spawns.

[VaderShake]

Not to over criticize...

But the bridge is there precisely in order to facilitate getting from A-B faster :groovy:

Just nitpicking though :lol:

I agree with everything you're saying.


Haha, thank you....exactly, it's just a quicker way to get from A. to B., or a flanking route, just another option, another place to fight, welcome to the sandbox.

I think we need in this game already when we are reduced to being critical of bridges haha.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Haha, thank you....exactly, it's just a quicker way to get from A. to B., or a flanking route, just another option, another place to fight, welcome to the sandbox.

I think we need in this game already when we are reduced to being critical of bridges haha.


I think bridges are OP and need to be nerfed.

[Boone]

Squad spawn makes it so bridges aren't as big of a deal sadly. This may change though, Higby has already mentioned squad beacons instead of squad spawns.

They should do that. If they decide to keep squad spawn just allow it on the leader, but also let us have beacons.

[Nordan]

Of course there is a point to them, they provide the shortest possible route to your destination and will thus always be of interest. I guess you could try to find your way through the ravine but I imagine you'd be very exposed down there and it would add many minutes of travel time. Bridges are typical bottle necks and if the developers design the maps correctly conflict should happen naturally there.

Squad spawn makes it so bridges aren't as big of a deal sadly. This may change though, Higby has already mentioned squad beacons instead of squad spawns.

But you can't spawn vehicles when fighting on the fray, right? So bridges should be important to allow a steady stream of reinforcements to arrive. I imagine transport trucks carrying troops and combat vehicles will make good use of them.

[RoninOni]

They should do that. If they decide to keep squad spawn just allow it on the leader, but also let us have beacons.

almost....

There will be a Cert under the leadership trees allowing you to place a Spawn Beacon for your squad IF you are the squad leader.

So there is only 1 beacon per squad, it's destroyable, and your squad leader needs to be specced for it or you're SOL.

(Disclaimer: Above is just as I understand it. Pretty sure it's right and it also sounds logical tho)

This is a SIGNIFICANT limitation from it's current implementation which is just spawn on anyone.

This new limitation is also whats facilitating the squad cap increase from 6 to 12 (can you imagine how hard it'd be to send a squad of 12 home with a spawn on anyone system? :huh:)

[Kipper]

DuskGuy got it.

I think we've had our answer though. I started this thread because I'd only seen bridges that didn't appear to bridge anything you probably couldn't just drive over. There isn't much point to these as a bridge. Just decoration.

Other people are saying they have seen bridges which are actually properly needed; these are the ones over which much VS/NC blood will be spilt.

[Shogun]

at gamescom i got to drive tanks and the bridges are needed!
the terrain is often too steep to drive up with a tank, so jumping down and going back up to bypass a bridge is no option. and when water is finished, i am sure we will get bridges over some as well.

[Tatwi]

Bridges - I like them, but is there a point to them?

Sure beats swimming. Also, doesn't matter how fast I drive my Lightning, she just ain't the General Lee!

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/70/179005270_589fdcae66_z.jpg?zz=1

[super pretendo]

destructible would be good

[RoninOni]

destructible would be good

maybe... defenders would just destroy the bridge at first sign that the attacking force may actually pose a threat though probably....

Now, if we had bridge LAYERS (that is, vehicles you could drive and would deploy a bridge) THOSE bridges most def should be destroyable (and would make a cool addition :cool)

[BlackOriOn]

That was one of my suggestions in the idea vault. That you could have a combat engineer squad with FDU's build a bridge. The more engineers present the faster the bridge could be built.

[RoninOni]

That was one of my suggestions in the idea vault. That you could have a combat engineer squad with FDU's build a bridge. The more engineers present the faster the bridge could be built.

Build?

I was thinking more like this:
Wolverine

4min to deploy, 10min to pick it up. Could easily speed those times up for game purposes (hell, we're looking at a 4x timescale right? 1min deploy, 2.5 pickup)

Once activated I imagine the driver could hop out and let the AI continue laying the bridge so he can help in defending it's deployment.

[Hamma]

Vehicles can't be spawned on the fly but you can get them at some outposts which will almost always be nearby.

[MaxDamage]

Although this particular bridge would need some work to allow vehicles over it, this multiplayer Space Marine map based on a bridge is a lot of fun:

http://beta.xfire.com/videos/55f8bf (http://beta.xfire.com/videos/55f8bf)

[Sunrock]

Sure beats swimming. Also, doesn't matter how fast I drive my Lightning, she just ain't the General Lee!

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/70/179005270_589fdcae66_z.jpg?zz=1

Wait a minute now... General Lee is a 1969 Dodge Charger... Oh I get it ;)

[Rico Suave]

I'm kinda torn on this. I would like destructible bridges but it does bring up that problem of consistent pre-emptive destroying or people just running around blowing up friendly bridges going "trololololol". And if there was a bridge building or laying vehichle how do you determine where it could be layed? If it can be layed everywhere I'm sure there would be bugs/glitches/exploits. So what if there were pre-determined locations to drop bridges ala Project Reality (albeit with a lot mroe pre-determined locations).

Last idea, when you destroy a bridge it destroys a lot of the top which doesn't allow vehicles to pass but there were walkways going under and on the side of the bridge that infantry could still use (I'm pretty sure Medal of Honor: Frontline [going back a few years], one of the missions has you disarming bombs under the bridge on walkways. Just do that, but expanded.)

[RoninOni]

With my idea the limit would be ~35-40m max distance, but you can drop it anywhere.

It would need to floow physics... so if you deploy it over 2 wide a gap it would fall in having no support on the far side.

[Renegadeknight]

I could see people scaling walls with a bridge vehicle. Not sure if that would be bad though.

[l3lizz4rd]

I like bridges.

[RoninOni]

I could see people scaling walls with a bridge vehicle. Not sure if that would be bad though.

Angle would be prohibitive to vehicles... and any serious angle prohibitive to infantry climbing it even.

short 10-15ft walls maybe, but trying to get up on those high walls where the turrets are on that biolab? Might reach it but it'd be almost pure vert.

Also... just make it deploy straight out... that's how the current ones work anyways.

Getting the bridge layer to angle up then would be an added difficulty... one which seems like it would be a profitable reward for a Lib gunner :D

[Gugabalog]

I could see people scaling walls with a bridge vehicle. Not sure if that would be bad though.

Why didn't I think of that?

[Kipper]

I think if you were to have a bridge laying vehicle, you'd have to make the maps so that there were plenty of fixed areas you could use it, but that it wasn't just something you could deploy anywhere.

Otherwise the potential for bugs, exploits, or just a world covered in bridges would be too great - I'd hate to think I'd designed a beautiful looking world and then people came along and ruined the entire thing in new and annoying ways.

Enough 'bridgeable' areas to promote strategic choice, and having them destructible by boomers, too many tank shells or form the air would keep things moving around a bit more I think. Obviously bridges work two ways, great to have them available when you're attacking, but not so great to have too many when defending - so they'll be built and destroyed often.