Swiss cheese

[GuyFawkes]

Now I know there are countless threads about base design, and fans have stated many times why they want walls, underground basements for generators, less windows and a more defensible structure overall. Many of us agree with this philosophy.

I'm just curious as to why the developers have gone with the swiss cheese base structure we have in place right now. I'm not baiting, if we could understand the idea and reasoning behind it all maybe the community could come up with some fresh ideas to suggest to work within this ethos.

Just things like the general clutter in courtyards, having multiple windows and doors where 1 door would suffice. There are very few corridors, no ''towers'' in the traditional sense, gun towers, air towers and so on.

There must be a general design idea that is being followed, since similar patterns repeat themselves. Is it purposefully to spread people out and prevent bottlenecks? Is it purely to distance itself from ps1 and the inevitable constant back door spam scenario? Or something else?

I repeat, I'm not posting to start another base structure arguement, just trying to understand why its this way rather than that way, and what the intention or goal is that is hoped to make the game better by doing it this way.

[Ritual]

Good luck.

SOE seems to have a ban on talking to us about it in any depth.

Im not even sure they know all the answers as to why they have it the way it is. When they can come out with a soundbite about it they will, it will probably take many more months of reflection. Or at least until they are ready to patch in changes.

[ringring]

+1
I've often thought that the discussions would be more constructive if we knew why certain decisions were taken, and we know that the placement of all objects in the game world must have a rationale except that we're forced to guess what those are and sometimes we'll guess wrongly.

I can guess, for instance, that the main bases are suppose to be the places were the large battles occur and because the populations are that much greater than in PS1 the bases must also be that much greater too.

Except of course, I haven't really seen large battles at any main base and mostly the fights that do happen there are over very quickly.

** Exceptions being Bio's .. although the fights don't appear to be *that* large the fights do last longer than at Amp's and Tech's.
*** I do recall 1 long fight at Zurvan right after the additional walls were added.

[Stanis]

I think they were aiming to provide a flowing style of combat.

PS1 had combat that stagnated and stalemated into a situation where entrenched defences meant NTU drain was the usual recourse.

In PS2 it's virtually impossible to hold an area. The crown is one of very few locations where the defenders actually hold a tactic advantage and look at the fights it generates.

Everywhere else the concept is fight for the territory. There is very little that can be done to pin the enemy down, or prevent them flanking or advancing.

You are better off with counter-offensive or flanking tactics virtually every time than trying to be defensive. The only thing I see working is defence in depth - but that's more a logistics issue of distance to vehicle respawn locations rather than actual resistance.

This means that combat should be dynamic and flowing. It also means you fight to take territory. You fight to hold territory. No sitting in a control room for 15 minutes.

[Qwan]

Wow that makes sence, I can see your point with the base layouts, the object was to keep the flow of battle going. I have to say some are wide open, I think some of the biggest battles happen around the towers, because there somewhat defendible but at the same time they do have there weeknesses, which can be explioted. I like the fact that the crown is this style and its on top of a hill, which not to mention the center of the map, makes it a good place to fight. Ive also noticed the bio labs since they moved the points inside the dome, have become places of nice size battles. They can be defended, but have there weaknesses. I still say they should impliment the base links, this will give bases more tactical significance IMO.

[Brusi]

They talked about open base concepts to death even before there was a single piece of base concept art...

The main reason the bases do not have corridors or closed up underground areas is because there is a much higher player cap. Also, as Stanis suggested, they did not want long drawn out doorway battles (hence, no doors), or battles consisting of pot shots down from the end of corridors, that can only to be broken by 20 MAX units balls rushing the joint.

Personally... i loved that sense of accomplishment gained from breaking such stalemates ;p

[GuyFawkes]

I wonder if its the class structure also that governs the bases. Matt Higby once gave the scenario from ps1 , tank drivers get to a base, thats their job done, the fight moves inside and their tank certs become useless. Same went with medium assault, you were ok outside, then once the fight goes inside its HA/max time.
With the class structure, it would limit the effectiveness of of many if once you go within a defendable base, your ranged weapons become less useful. Keeping things open allow all playstyles to be useful. Sure, medics and engineers still have their role, but they are advertised as combat classes, medic and engineer are secondary to your role. They dont want people sat at the back spamming heals, they need to have fun as well.
Its a delicate balance to get the sweet spot between allowing all to have their role wherever they are, and on the other hand having a defendable structure that isn't only designed for platoon v platoon type of battles. The outposts could fill in the gap between small and large type warfare, but so far dont have that necessary stop structure to encourage people to leave their vehicles.