PS2 Base Design

[Wahooo]

I keep getting more and more infuriated with the general base design and how they just don't seem to match the game mechanics.

This change to tech plants is silly. Can you imagine how un-fun a PS1 dropship station would be to defend if the generator were in the building the air term was in?

meh... I started typing all of the general issues I have but there is just so much that frustrates me about the bases, but more the lack of the meta-game how there is no benefit to REALLY try and save a base, and there really is no way to accomplish it, a last second gal drop to re-secure.

[Beerbeer]

I wish they would just build all new bases then patch them in one continent at a time.

Vehicles shouldn't be able to camp critical objectives or spawn points, at all IMO.

[Figment]

Was about to post this:

How one could do outpost spawns as well.

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/5710/outpost01mainlobby.jpg (http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/5710/outpost01mainlobby.jpg)

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5480/outpost01outside2.jpg (http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5480/outpost01outside2.jpg)

Will post a further description in the morning. Sorry about the wireframe, is a bit hard to read maybe.


Beats a two exit spawnroom of 12 square meters, doesn't it? >.>

EDIT:
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6533/onfortifyingentrances.jpg (http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6533/onfortifyingentrances.jpg)

EDIT2:
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1354/onbunkersystems.jpg (http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1354/onbunkersystems.jpg)

[bpostal]

...Vehicles shouldn't be able to camp critical objectives or spawn points, at all IMO.

This is the big one IMHO. This and the seemingly forced fragmentation of the flow of the fight. Planetside had(has) a linear progression to it which added weight to the feeling of...well, progression.

[Crator]

Only issue with that Figment is it's all in one area. What's the rest of the base used for? I really don't see how they can use all areas of the bases without redesigning them by adding some underground tunnels from the spawns to the SCU and CC.

[Timealude]

Right now, I feel this change to the tech plant was made because of the huge amount of farming that was done this weekend at them. This imo wasnt a good change simply because now the game causes even more tank spam there there already was. In fact if you have enough tanks and a few sundys you count take a tech planet in 10 minutes easy. This is way too fast imo and at this rate I will start growing very bored simply because there are only two capture strategies now. If anything they should have made tech plants even harder to take because of how much of a bonus they give compared to the bio labs and amp stations.

[Figment]

Only issue with that Figment is it's all in one area. What's the rest of the base used for? I really don't see how they can use all areas of the bases without redesigning them by adding some underground tunnels from the spawns to the SCU and CC.

The rest? That's basically courtyard and outer perimeter.

Tunnels could be added too, the above is a minimal change to the current design.

[Crator]

^ Well, that was just one type of base, right?

[Figment]

^ Well, that was just one type of base, right?

Just a sample.

Layout could be different too, with spawns in the place where I put the CC now, for instance and CC in SCU area (would require different entrances).

[Beerbeer]

There's really no point in being infantry in this game, other than to shoot at vehicles as an HA because you're stuck or are a masochist and enjoy being farmed by vehicles.

[Crator]

Just a sample.

Layout could be different too, with spawns in the place where I put the CC now, for instance and CC in SCU area (would require different entrances).

Cool. I'm down for anything that doesn't allow vehicles spawn camping, varied locations of SCU/spawns/CC with slight advantage to defenders. I like your concept. Just they are going to have to build some dang tunnels or something for some of this. To spread out things in some places. Not everyplace has to be the same though.

[Figment]

Do notice I picked this building in part due to the catwalk options on the first floor (already catwalks there in most outposts with this building, or a balcony).

[Beerbeer]

The only good thing about crappy base design and a vehicle heavy content, is that I was smart not buying infantry weapons or wasting certs in them, lol.

[Figment]

PS: One could consider an AA turret mid top, and some AV turrets on some corners.

(See PS1 towers)

[Rivenshield]

/copypasted from official forums

UberBonisseur asks, with pics demonstrating how absurdly easy this makes things for the attacker:

@Arclegger: You added jump pads. Again. Why ? Take Allatum (Biolab) You have elevators below the pads. Why do you chose jump pads located at 200+ meters over elevators ? Are human cannonballs so much better than actually fighting for ground until you reach the facility? Do you despise ground play so much ? Do you really prefer wide arrays of no-man's land over a good fight ?

Teleporters located in satellites were bad enough. Now we have both Pad access and teleporters located there. Do you really want to turn "Defense" in "Active offense", as your only chance to win is to take back the bases around and not holding the base itself?

Arclegger's bland reply:

I appreciate your concern, but every Biolab in Amerish and Esamir had this functionality for weeks and we have just streamlined the Indar bases to have similar functionality.

Thanks.


It's official, gents. They want Zergside; they're DESIGNING Zergside. 100% offense, all the time.

[bpostal]

Just a sample.

Layout could be different too, with spawns in the place where I put the CC now, for instance and CC in SCU area (would require different entrances).

Do us all a favor, get a job at SOE. I know these bases are hand crafted and I really appreciate that fact, but God DAMN these base layouts... Is it too much to ask we take a layered approach to bases similar to Planetside 1? Outside is vehicle territory, CY is a hot and heavy mix of both (With covered staircases like miniature 'towers' that can be held with some MAXs, AdvMeds and Rexo's) and the entire inside of the base is Infantry's happy hunting ground.
This just seems especially important to me, not just as someone who enjoys a predominantly Infantry play style but with the fact that everyone can pull anything, resulting in a much larger glut of vehicles than ever seen before.

[RSphil]

i find most bases ok and fun to fight over. the new tech plant config however i find bad and tbh stupid design. noone would ever put base defense devices outside the base they are made to defend, so the gens for the shield now being out side to me seems really stupid.

also i agree that tanks should not be able to camp a spawn room. troops will always do it, no getting away from that but a few nades and mad rush out can clear a good path. but tanks is silly. the blast shields infront of some spawn room doors is ok but they should anti tank spikes/ barriers around all spawn buildings. more defense needs to be looked at and how a base would be built, atm this is a little lacking. they need to look at it from a defenders point of view. how could we make this base so our vehicles can move around to places where they are needed but the enemy cant get to vital areas with vehicle support.

[Figment]

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/outpost-spawn-design-based-on-existing-building.65475/

Arclegger responded. :)

He says the only problem would be art required, which would postpone other continents.


Think it's better to first redesign buildings and then design the continents around those, then first design the continents and then having to rework all bases due to flawed outpost design principles.

[Mechzz]

Do us all a favor, get a job at SOE. I know these bases are hand crafted and I really appreciate that fact, but God DAMN these base layouts... Is it too much to ask we take a layered approach to bases similar to Planetside 1? Outside is vehicle territory, CY is a hot and heavy mix of both (With covered staircases like miniature 'towers' that can be held with some MAXs, AdvMeds and Rexo's) and the entire inside of the base is Infantry's happy hunting ground.
This just seems especially important to me, not just as someone who enjoys a predominantly Infantry play style but with the fact that everyone can pull anything, resulting in a much larger glut of vehicles than ever seen before.

Sad thing is, the original PS2 base designs DID allow for progression. Do you remember that awesome picture of a Mossie hovering over the new Zurvan, with its walls and force fields? And I remember Higby describing a progression-based fight with the ability to capture the CY and move forwards.

Now, the PS2 Tech plant was still a LESSER base design than most PS1 bases, even though they were more defensible. The PS1 bases gave you feeling of real urgency when you were rushing up from the spawn to the CY. Sometimes you'd be fighting just outside the walls (for the tower), then pushed back onto the walls then into the CY then into the building and eventually back to the spawns. Even when losing it could be totally awesome.

I understand why they wouldn't want every base to play like that, but to take away one of the two that did occasionally produce a longer fight is just plain silly on SOE's part.

[Sturmhardt]

Yup, the basedesign guys are not really doing a great job, many valid points here.

[Stanis]

The problem is the style of combat. The gaps in walls infantry can just walk through. The fact everyone can get LA jump over the walls and target any of the four shield gens using a sunderer placed just outside the walls - while friendlies are spawning a vast distance away.

The concept of shield generators for both outer wall and inner structure is good.
The location of them is terrible.

The teleports and jump pads assist the attackers. They shouldnt. Ever.
The walls, due to spawn distances, are actually an advantage for attackers as it gives them a covered walk way and elevated position all around the base.


Lets have boring plain PS1 style outer walls. No cover for attackers from inside.
In short they should be an artifiicial elevated position for reverse slope defense.
A CY that is mostly empty and is a barbican or killing ground if breached.
Again - no cover from the main base structure but cover against the CY itself meaning infantry can scoot and shoot enemy vehicles that have breached.
An inner base designed with an exterior or perimeter that is easily reached - meaning the defendenders can always respawn and be back in position regardless of where the attackers are spawning.

Lets give sunderers a deploy radius based on SOI.
enemy/friendly hex = 100m (or current value)
enemy facility = 2x value = 200m
friendly facility = 1/2 value = 50m

We should be able to have two or three sunderers deployed inside the base
The enemy should only be able to get one or two deployed at a time

[Figment]

Design principles applied:

A. Staged fighting for defending an outpost:

1. Defense outside of outer perimeter (outside of walls around outpost).

2 Defense from walled walkways (even walkways for every simple, low wall). Attackers should try to breach outer defense, bust open CY (shield generators, get AMSes into CY). Rather than just ignore it and jump over the walls with LA. LA should be able to jump over, but defenders should have ways to stop them from approaching the walls in the first place. Walls should benefit defenders in terms of cover, not attackers.

3. Defense from and for courtyard. Buildings cover inside of the courtyard, attackers should be funneled, defenders must have access to high ground, so they can clear enemy LA, snipers, CY vehicles and have relative safe positions to place AA (predominantly infantry should clear AA out). More or less CoD style map is fine for this stage.

4. Defense to keep in an atttempt to hold the fort. The keep design dominates the CY and therefore would be usable to regain control over the CY by attempting to get hold of surrounding buildings again.

5. Once the courtyard has fallen and the keep building under siege, one resorts to holding the internal areas: CC and spawns.

NOTE: In case of a larger facility than an outpost and thus more important to hold and siege requiring to last longer, the defenders should have inner lines of defense to fall back to in a linear manner. In the outpost above, this would be the case to a small degree with the 2nd lobby being a bufferzone with the spawn area. In case of a tech plant, this could be a triple story design with choke points between each level of the building. For instance, spawns and SCU on the top level, the CC on the first or second level below that, the shield gen on the first floor. Probably the shielded ground floor area must be larger to have some defensive cover and a few more entry points.

An outpost must play like a smaller, quicker base by having less deep levels. The smallest of outposts would have the most basic PS1 tower like designs.

Just an example, note that choke points shouldn't be too limited, but also not be too forgiving, that's a precarious balance, especially with jetpacks creating their own options - that shouldn't be possible on each level for instance.

6a. CC lost: try to take back CC, must be possible without exposing one self to external camping (AoE) fire. Dominance over CC must be earned by attacker, not obtained by default due to defenders crossing CY through a massive camp and crossfire.

6b. SCU lost: hold CC and try to get SCU back up. Getting SCU back up makes holding CC much trickier and is therefore a very viable resecure strategy.

B. A base can only be taken by firm infantry control. Vehicles gain ground, infantry consolidate terrain.

C. Defenders can exit to at least three different areas, even if one side is camped that leaves multiple options. This could for instance mean an underground basement spawnroom with tunnels to various buildings of the outpost, a tower like structure with exits to several rooms and levels.

D. Outer keep must have 6 or more exits. Preferably facing 3-5 different sides of a building so camping cannot be done from one direction (roof included).

E. Attackers should be able to make decisive strikes and short duration holds that break defender control over a base. A Gal Drop or Sundy Drop for instance must be hard to deal with, especially when defenders are well outside the base. Objective game play is important then.

F. Doors should not have direct visibility on areas deeper into the base, this to limit AoE spam to the outer most perimeter. Doors should therefore preferably be perpendicular to one another, have obstructions between them when in line or off-set to make a straight shot through both doors impossible.

G. Outside of doors there should be cover and obstructions to direct fire AoE spam. For instance, shielding walls in front of doors, some semi-seethrough roofing, obstructions to keep vehicles away and to hide behind for about 5-25 meters at least. This should provide some sort of buffer zone. Alternatively could be access to high ground or bunker systems.

H. Only infantry may camp the largest amount of spawn room exits. If they do, it must be possible to clear them out with sufficient defensive pressure.

I. The attacker has multiple ways to decisively win the fight. The defender has multiple ways to keep the pressure on the attacker.

J. The attacker must pressurize points and reach for objectives and hold those for some time. The defender must coordinate their efforts by prioritizing areas to defend and shifting defensive bias around.

K. The defender must have access to high ground and different parts of a facility so it can at least attempt to walk the stages in reverser order, ie. from 6 to 1. This doesn't need to be directly reachable from the spawnroom, if it is possible to hold or reconquer a buffer zone to said high ground with infantry vs infantry only.

L. Defenders without proper certification in certain fields must be able to apply their basic weapons once in an advantageous position (high ground) or use alternate methods (turrets) without being completely exposed to all elements. This means they can position such that they don't face each threat continuously or can focus on particular threats. For instance by having roof cover and parapet walls.

M. Objective based gameplay should allow for sneak attacks and sabotage (skilled infiltrator gameplay).

N. Any turrets should have some protection for engineers to try and get them back up and not be placed too far out of the building (they are primary targets anyway and instrumental to CY control).

O. SCU location: must be within spitting distance to spawns. One must have control of rooms directly around spawns to kill them, shows your dominance over the spawn area. ie. Only if infantry is in a position to spawncamp, should they be able to try and tackle the spawns. Infiltrators could have a significant role here.

P. There must be incentive to destroy the SCU over camping: aside from low exp for fresh spawns (more to gain from capture!), the spawns should be a direct threat in your goal to take the CC. As long as the spawns are alive, holding the CC should be a real feat.

Q. Would probably be a good idea to drop spawnroom shields when the SCU goes down so the outpost can be cleared and shields themselves can't be used for farming.

R. When vertical paths (elevators) are used, it should always be possible to go in and out of areas. One way traffic leads to strange gameplay where suiciding is the only way to change class or get to resupplies. Furthermore, under Q, it would provide alterior paths of clearing and resecuring.

[WarbirdTD]

I couldn't agree more with this post. The Tech Plants right now are AWFUL. Tech Plants were my absolute favorite and really gave you that feeling of accomplishment after a long base assault or defense (kinda like PS1). This change is taking away those epic fights, as well as making the shield-breaker sunderer setup pretty pointless. Whoever is whining to you about how long a base attack lasts needs to go away. This is Planetside, not CoD/BF. This is persistent and epic, not instant gratification crap.

On a somewhat related note, PLEASE make the next bases more fun for infantry fighting. Planetside 1 attained this by having the base stuff underground and the fights were SO memorable. Hell, you could probably copy/paste the design of the Interlink, and have a more defensible fortress than the Amp Station. The base design in Amps and now Techs, in which the spawn rooms are 2 minutes away from the control point, is pretty bad, and too susceptible to vehicle farming, as they are outside.

All in all, the dev team could have avoided a bad decision like this by asking our opinion on the change in the first place. Hopefully, this gaffe gets corrected and they use this as a learning opportunity to draw on player input like they were doing so well in beta.

[Figment]

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6533/onfortifyingentrances.jpg (http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6533/onfortifyingentrances.jpg)

Think this speaks for itself?

[Figment]

So I see a lot comments on that improvements are needed. How about you lot also help with some specific ideas on layout flow? How much space you need, how you could replace small current shacks in specific outposts with alternate buildings, or which other buildings would actually be suitable, etc.

Even screenshots with some arrows would help on where you would like to defend and how. :)


Btw, easiest cont to fix will probably be Esamir. Due to having more space. Amerish with its multilevel buildings will be a lot trickier - unless they can start digging into the mountains. Which could be very interesting.


Another thing is the current design of towers. How would you solve the "drop in front of firing squad" issue for instance? And is all space in a tower used to maximum effect? Any place to put the SCU? etc.

[Mordelicius]

By the looks of it, they designed the bases on one premise:

No Turtling. Every player has to keep moving.

Take for example a medium base.
- At the first floor of the main building, you have 2 side entrances, 2 vehicle entrances, 2 stairs on one side and 2 elevators on the other.
- The capture point A is on the second floor while the defensive spawn is on the third with the turrets and/or Infantry console.
- Even if you manage to turtle at A, you lose B and C and you will lose eventually.

On an Amp Station:
- If you turtle on the main building, you will lose the shields on the inner outer gates and and inner gates.
- If you turtle on the outer battlements, you'll lose everything.

On the Tech Plants:
- They removed the ability to turtle and guard mainly the the two doors.

General Layout:
-If you look at any room layout, there are no point where you can hide and not get flanked. There are always at least two exits. There are several windows and stairs. If there ever a confined space, it's easily trumped by grenade, rocket launcher or vehicular bombing.

The main flaw with the design philosphy is they give too much power to the planes and tanks. On a small outpost, it's hopeless when you have tanks, especially Magriders, going out of their way blast camp the spawn exits. This is one of the main reasons why Vanu owns Esamir almost exclusively.

Which leave players the only good defensive point being the Biolabs. They are mostly free from Air and Vehicle spam.

To give the smaller bases a chance, they have to give them built-in AA. In addition, they outposts must have AV turrets than can go 360 degrees. Lastly, the spawn room must have at least 3 large shielded exits AND an open roof with shield, so, campers can be shot at, especially those planes, just hovering above.

[Whiteagle]

After seeing a time-lapse video of a base siege, I have to agree that the original base designs were superior to anything we have now.

So I see a lot comments on that improvements are needed. How about you lot also help with some specific ideas on layout flow? How much space you need, how you could replace small current shacks in specific outposts with alternate buildings, or which other buildings would actually be suitable, etc.
Eh, hard to say really...
A large number of outpost would probably need to be redone entirely in order to make them defensible, and redoing them all is probably out of the question...

Focusing on Towers will probably be the most effective, since they appear to be bases of importance considering their capabilities.

Btw, easiest cont to fix will probably be Esamir. Due to having more space. Amerish with its multilevel buildings will be a lot trickier - unless they can start digging into the mountains. Which could be very interesting.
Well Amerish probably has the best anti-vehicle camping base layouts out of all three, so it can probably wait for an overhaul for now.

Another thing is the current design of towers. How would you solve the "drop in front of firing squad" issue for instance? And is all space in a tower used to maximum effect? Any place to put the SCU? etc.
Probably the easiest fix would be to alternate the drop down points so they are on ether side of the tower, instead of one campable wall.
Hell, it might be worth looking into making the entire thing symmetrical...

Then if you put an SCU in them, it could be centrally located between the two spawn drops.

[Figment]

The problem I have with drops is that you drop first, see what is out there later.

And if you put a shield over it with complete cover of a floor, that isn't good either from an attack perspective. Hence why I did use a shield after the drop (with elevators), which then ended on a secure room with two entrances and some safe walls. You could clear that small area, then use the next area to try and clear the room in a fight. A mini buffer zone so to speak.

I'm only not happy with its vulnerability to instagib grenade spam. The 2nd lobby should have sufficient cover to get out those two doors into other positions so if spammed it works more as flushing out than farming.

I'm not pleased with the ohk grenades, rather had seen more, but less damaging grenades. Limited quantity over quality, rather than limited quality.

[Crator]

Do the grenades do less damage to indirect targets? Meaning, if a lot of players are around a grenade explosion do the targets behind the players who take the brunt of the burst receive less damage?

That would be nice in this case.

[Beerbeer]

Where's Malorn in all of this? How come he hasn't beat some sense into some of the people over there? Or has he become one of their sheeps?

[Whiteagle]

The problem I have with drops is that you drop first, see what is out there later.

And if you put a shield over it with complete cover of a floor, that isn't good either from an attack perspective. Hence why I did use a shield after the drop (with elevators), which then ended on a secure room with two entrances and some safe walls. You could clear that small area, then use the next area to try and clear the room in a fight. A mini buffer zone so to speak.

I'm only not happy with its vulnerability to instagib grenade spam. The 2nd lobby should have sufficient cover to get out those two doors into other positions so if spammed it works more as flushing out than farming.

Well you are going to need a much different second floor layout if you are going to fit two two-stage spawn exit rooms on it, but two of them should prevent grenade spam by making each less vulnerable...


...But from the sounds of it, you are going to have to redesign the top level as well just to accommodate same elevator set-up.

I don't know how much more I can discuss without pulling up MS Paint and drawing blueprints, and I really haven't the energy for that tonight...

[Figment]

But wait! There's more!
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1354/onbunkersystems.jpg (http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1354/onbunkersystems.jpg)

I'm also very much in favour of raising some tower buildings completely beyond the (external!) reach of Light Assaults.

Gal Drops ladies and gentlemen. Gal Drops.

[bpostal]

But wait! There's more!
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1354/onbunkersystems.jpg (http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1354/onbunkersystems.jpg)

I'm also very much in favour of raising some tower buildings completely beyond the (external!) reach of Light Assaults.

Gal Drops ladies and gentlemen. Gal Drops.

I do love me some gal drops, but looking at that picture with the two pillboxes and the mainly subterranean base on the bottom right...am I reading that wrong or is the ONLY way to building B through the spawns? It seems important to have at least two routes that lead near to, but not directly through spawns.
Other than that, looks like all good shit, I particularly like the part where on at least some buildings LA can't just hop over everything. :D

[Figment]

I do love me some gal drops, but looking at that picture with the two pillboxes and the mainly subterranean base on the bottom right...am I reading that wrong or is the ONLY way to building B through the spawns? It seems important to have at least two routes that lead near to, but not directly through spawns.

It's just a two dimensional principle image. ;)

I'd expect at least two routes around the spawns, plus getting in more directly from the outside to the CC.

Other than that, looks like all good shit, I particularly like the part where on at least some buildings LA can't just hop over everything. :D

I think it's extremely important. It just makes bypassing too easy and Galaxies obsolete right now.

[Babyfark McGeez]

We discussed this topic to death, so i will just repeat my summary of the last thread about this:

Instead of cluttering objectives and spawns around in what is basically the courtyard of a base the design should be more strictly linear, with this basic formula for all bases and outposts in mind (from a defenders perspective):
Spawnroom -> Spawn Gen -> Capture Point(s) (/Capture Mechanic)-> Courtyard

Vehicles should only have access to the Courtyard area. Shields and associated gens, basically obstacles, can be added between the different "stages", to make fights longer.

[Rahabib]

is it just me or does SOE like that its so easy to capture now. They seem to go out of their way to make it easier for bases to be captured.

[Qwan]

Right now, I feel this change to the tech plant was made because of the huge amount of farming that was done this weekend at them. This imo wasnt a good change simply because now the game causes even more tank spam there there already was. In fact if you have enough tanks and a few sundys you count take a tech planet in 10 minutes easy. This is way too fast imo and at this rate I will start growing very bored simply because there are only two capture strategies now. If anything they should have made tech plants even harder to take because of how much of a bonus they give compared to the bio labs and amp stations.

Hmm good point, I can remember one of the dev stating that they wanted to get rid of the original bases because of the choke point fights, and I think that the tech plant was creating that. At the back (or front) doors players were trying to run threw that door and getting slaughter. Also there is that crack over the side shields, a engi with a turret can get quite a few kills waiting for a LA to come that way. But with tanks spamming the doors and then letting up for a second can give the infantry the break they need. Ive also learned with a sniper posted at the right point you can take out guys camping the gap at the shield, opening up the door for LA assaults with grenades to boot. I for one dont like the base design exept maybe the bio lab (my prefered preference), but the way there designed once the enemy gets in and gets a foot hold its pretty much over IMO.

[Whiteagle]

I'm also very much in favour of raising some tower buildings completely beyond the (external!) reach of Light Assaults.

Gal Drops ladies and gentlemen. Gal Drops.
Eh, I wouldn't raise them out of Light Assault reach (since that is the class my entire Outfit is suppose to be based around...), but I wouldn't be opposed to crenelating the balconies to make it more difficult.
This would also serve to make them better fortifications for Infantry to defend from, giving them slightly more protection from vehicle attacks as well as small arms.

Admittedly though man, I don't know how much of your redesigns will be immediately usable...
...I focused on towers because they already meet a large number of your criteria and are implemented like a keep for most outposts anyways.

It'd be fairly easy to replace them with a more fortified design, then erect a few walls around the base perimeter.

A lot of your stuff, while practical and awesome, will require a large amount of terrain and base-layout restructuring in order to work.
They'd be much better for designing Continents around instead of plunking them down on the pre-existing geography.

While this would provide FAR better defensive game-play, we have to realise that this will still leave them with three Continents in need of overhaul.

As such, I feel we should probably focus on more immediate means of strengthening bases...

...Namely, replacing those deathtrap sardine cans that are small spawn buildings!

Let's face it, they are probably the worst offenders when it comes to camping, offering no real protection against enemy forces while simultaneously being more of a hindrance to defense then an asset.

A couple of days ago, an idea thread on "fortifications" got me thinking about Platoon Leaders having access to deployable Spawn Buildings...

Now the viability of such a concept is debatable, but it did lead me to a small spawn building design that would be a VAST improvement over the current boxes.

It would be a mushroom-shaped structure, a squat tower from which the base can be defended from.

The trunk of the building itself has no entrances, just a set of two spawn tubes, equipment terminals, and a shielded elevator for going to and from the second floor.
The second floor itself would be an octangular arrangement of bastions and machicolations, roofed in such a way that only the outermost lips of the bastions would be open to overhead bombardment.
This would allow the spawn building itself to be used as a defensive hard-point as well as providing defenders four potential sheltered exits down through the machicolations...

...The only downside is that Light Assaults will be the only ones able to get back INTO the spawn after dropping, but this could be partially alleviated by external equipment terminals...

Thoughts?

[Figment]

If your outfit is completely based around LA (which unfortunately is not really possible), you'd think airborne aircraft attacks would be extra suited for your group.


Even the PS1 strategy of Mosquito bailing should be easily applicable to a group of LAs. But it'd be more rare and that'd be the whole point.


Hell, maybe the long distance glide jetpack may one day be useful then. :p But variation is good in general.

The main reason for wanting other spawn design is the 2 exit shack. I'm first looking at which buildings are already present and seeing if I can rework them into either the underground system or convert one of the bigger buildings.

As for calling down a building, could be something for the future, though I'd only see that as a viable solution in the distant game and probably mostly for bigger outfits/groups. So that'd be an expansion, rather than a solution. They do want to get to the point where players can deploy buildings on previously empty continents though.

[Whiteagle]

If your outfit is completely based around LA (which unfortunately is not really possible), you'd think airborne aircraft attacks would be extra suited for your group.
Oh yeah, our Outfit leader keeps spouting on and on about how we are a "Light Assaults drops out of Galaxies" Outfit...

...Despite my warnings that such a tactic will be of limited use... and how we barely have enough active players on to half fill a Galaxy...

Even the PS1 strategy of Mosquito bailing should be easily applicable to a group of LAs. But it'd be more rare and that'd be the whole point.
Oh man, one of the most epic things I've pulled off in this game is bailing from a Mosquito diving at a fully manned Tech Plant roof, only to jet-pack to safety and plant a spawn beacon on one of the "Horns".

Hell, maybe the long distance glide jetpack may one day be useful then. :p But variation is good in general.
Yeah, we're one of the few Outfits who'd get use out of it...

...But I still prefer the flexibility of the standard model.

The main reason for wanting other spawn design is the 2 exit shack. I'm first looking at which buildings are already present and seeing if I can rework them into either the underground system or convert one of the bigger buildings.
Of course, but there are a large number of issues with your method.

The biggest ones being the need to rework the base for an underground system or accommodate a larger spawn building.

The two-door spawn shack is one of the smallest buildings in game, only the two door huts used for teleporter exits in Bio-labs are smaller...

Thus, using a larger building would require extensive reworking of the base's layout and terrain, essentially recreating it from scratch.

While this would be nice, chances are SOE executives aren't going to see this process as "cost effective", at least not in the immedeant future.

My thinking with these "Alamo Mushrooms" is that they'd have the same sized footprint as the shacks, but provide a defensive hard-point from which a last ditch effort can be made to repel attackers.

Would they make every outpost easier to defend?
Hopefully...

Would they be better then what we have now?
HELLS YES!

As for calling down a building, could be something for the future, though I'd only see that as a viable solution in the distant game and probably mostly for bigger outfits/groups. So that'd be an expansion, rather than a solution. They do want to get to the point where players can deploy buildings on previously empty continents though.
Oh certainly!
I just figure a practical small scale spawn building is a practical small scale spawn building... even if it does look like it can be dropped from orbit.

[Figment]

Well the thing is, every base has ample space underneath the terrain, so really, it's mostly about digging some holes and ensuring the heights match up with standard blocks and then having 100% freedom. :)

[Whiteagle]

Well the thing is, every base has ample space underneath the terrain, so really, it's mostly about digging some holes and ensuring the heights match up with standard blocks and then having 100% freedom. :)
That's still altering the maps geography man...
If you were building the Continent from the ground up, you'd already be doing this as you decide where bases are going to go.

...But when you are talking redoing two dozen bases per map, that's a rather big investment of time and resources.

You have to realise that the "ground" in Planetside 2 isn't a solid object, it's actually a two-dimensional sheet that is raised and lowered in places in order to give it a general feel of terrain.
When you "make a tunnel", you're actually indenting a trench into the sheet, then covering it over with an object made to look like the ground.
If you've ever worked with buildings in a 3D environment like Second Life, then you'd have an appreciation for how tedious a task this can be with a single area of a few hundred square meters, let alone 24 times over.

Long story short, "burying" things in Planetside 2 is a long and arduous process, one that is infeasible as a short term solution to indefensible bases.

Would I like to see more tunnels?
Yes, but I understand that it would take awhile, so I'd rather have a stopgap that involves the rather simple process of trading one building for another in the meantime.

[Figment]

Changing the geography isn't a big deal, talked to Arclegger at Gamescom and he said it was a very forgiving engine and he could change terrain with ease. Big thing was that a change in terrain required art brushes by an artist as all textures are manually applied with four brushes.

If you change any building, you'll have to anyway. Besides, it's not just the spawn box itself that's bad, it's the location at the edge of a facility too.

[Whiteagle]

Changing the geography isn't a big deal, talked to Arclegger at Gamescom and he said it was a very forgiving engine and he could change terrain with ease. Big thing was that a change in terrain required art brushes by an artist as all textures are manually applied with four brushes.
Yes, changing the terrain isn't comparatively hard, but integrating building assets into it is a whole 'nother story.

Believe me Figment, I come from a Second Life Military background, where every in-game base has to be built using the in-game modeling tools.

An overhaul like this could take weeks, and that's just for ONE base!

If you change any building, you'll have to anyway. Besides, it's not just the spawn box itself that's bad, it's the location at the edge of a facility too.
Uh... no actually...
The Buildings are modular assets, much like the bits and pieces you have to work with in a console game's map editor...
My "Alamo Mushrooms" would have a "footprint" that would fit in the same area that the current "spawn boxes" sit, requiring very little if ANY modifications to the existing layout to work.

And the existing "spawn boxes" are horrible, the only things they currently do is give you a safe place to load-in and use an equipment terminal.
Hell, we had to beg for a second exit on some of them!

It's not just because they are placed as far away from the objective as possible, though that IS a big part of it, there is also the fact that the only protection they give to defenders are shielded doors...

There is a reason why I keep calling this design the "Alamo Mushroom", even if the defenders are pushed back to their spawn, they'll still have a means with which to launch a counter attack.
If a tank were to roll up on it, then Heavy Assaults could go out on the bastions to fire rockets at it, while other classes could drop down on the opposite side out of Line of Sight.
The Mushroom shape of the building itself provides an umbrella against aerial bombardment!

It won't be perfect, but it will give us something while we wait for the developers to do more in-depth overhauls.

[Figment]

Yes, changing the terrain isn't comparatively hard, but integrating building assets into it is a whole 'nother story.

Believe me Figment, I come from a Second Life Military background, where every in-game base has to be built using the in-game modeling tools.

An overhaul like this could take weeks, and that's just for ONE base!

Yeah, but that's why they're better off designing the buildings NOW, then first creating more continents that will need to be overhauled one by one. :/ IT's doing the work twice and is going to cost a lot more time.

Uh... no actually...
The Buildings are modular assets, much like the bits and pieces you have to work with in a console game's map editor...
My "Alamo Mushrooms" would have a "footprint" that would fit in the same area that the current "spawn boxes" sit, requiring very little if ANY modifications to the existing layout to work.

I know, I wasn't saying it wouldn't fit there, I was saying it wouldn't work as well there (they'd have to move it anyway, which would cause a lot of reworking).

So far it seems base redesigns take a few days at least.

It won't be perfect, but it will give us something while we wait for the developers to do more in-depth overhauls.

I understand the concept, could work as a stand in. Problem is as with anything else, nothing is as permanent as temporary. Good chance they'll call it a day after that as resources are shifted by managers. :/ They'd first have to dedicate themselves to that redesign process really.

Plus, you'll get the whole argument with the status quo crowds again...

[Whiteagle]

Yeah, but that's why they're better off designing the buildings NOW, then first creating more continents that will need to be overhauled one by one. :/ IT's doing the work twice and is going to cost a lot more time.
True enough, but this will delay development on new Continents, leaving us with the OLD Continents until they are done...

Hence why I am focusing on quick building asset swaps for spawns; they won't fix the issue outright, but they will make it slightly better until the Devs can go back and do a complete overhaul.

I know, I wasn't saying it wouldn't fit there, I was saying it wouldn't work as well there (they'd have to move it anyway, which would cause a lot of reworking).
Actually, not really...
All the small spawn boxes appear to be stand-alone structures that sit by their lonesome, so it just be a matter of deleting them and replacing them with the Mushrooms.

It would probably take less then a hour to replace one, meaning an entire Continent could be done in a couple of days.

I understand the concept, could work as a stand in. Problem is as with anything else, nothing is as permanent as temporary. Good chance they'll call it a day after that as resources are shifted by managers. :/ They'd first have to dedicate themselves to that redesign process really.
Indeed, but they'd first have to get the go-ahead for the redesign process in the first place...
My Mushrooms would hopefully be the first of many more Building assets created for the new designs, it'd just be the easiest to swap with its current counterpart due to their stand-alone nature.
Preferably they and the bases their on would be replaced later on by much better Outpost Fortifications, thus freeing them up to be used as Platoon Spawn Deployables.

[Figment]

Actually, not really...
All the small spawn boxes appear to be stand-alone structures that sit by their lonesome, so it just be a matter of deleting them and replacing them with the Mushrooms.

No, I'm refering to their placement being horrible currently. They "have to rework the entire base layout", for it to be a proper base in general. Being at the edge, stand alone just makes is a lot more easier to camp. So I understand your point, I'm just refering to the work they have to do eventually anyway.

So yes, it would replace it, but the flow would still be bad.

[Rivenshield]

is it just me or does SOE like that its so easy to capture now. They seem to go out of their way to make it easier for bases to be captured.

Yeah. If you haven't heard all the bland statements about 'active defense' and 'keeping the game moving' you haven't been keeping a finger on the official forums. 'Defense' is apparently a code word for 'farming.' And that's bad, mmmkay?

[Figment]

Yeah. If you haven't heard all the bland statements about 'active defense' and 'keeping the game moving' you haven't been keeping a finger on the official forums. 'Defense' is apparently a code word for 'farming.' And that's bad, mmmkay?

Ironic, since that is exactly what attackers do now. If this is "active defense", is this also called "passive offense" then? Makes sense, probably why I get so bored attacking.

[Wahooo]

Active Defense? If that means just giving up and attacking an empty base on the other side of the continent they nailed it.

[Whiteagle]

Must be, considering half the time I try to defend an Outpost I end up getting steam rolled by five Magriders, three Scythes, and a couple of Sunderers...

[Beerbeer]

All of these are good ideas, which makes me wonder about the next continent...

Will it be the same in regards to outpost and base design or different? Will vehicles play any role in taking over an objective other than trying to get to the base or repel people away, like it should have been all along?

The burden should always be on the attacker, it's the other way around now.

[Sturmhardt]

Must be, considering half the time I try to defend an Outpost I end up getting steam rolled by five Magriders, three Scythes, and a couple of Sunderers...

Yeah... when I'm defendin a tower INSIDE I get killed by vehicles or airplanes, not infantry.... very strange :/

[Whiteagle]

All of these are good ideas, which makes me wonder about the next continent....
Well I'm hoping they'll wait and give us the next few Continents in one big bunch.

I mean, the Meta game isn't going to improve until we have at least four more, if we replace Sancuaries in my old Diagram's Figure 5 with "Home Continents":

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/Whiteagle/ContinentDiagram.png

Will it be the same in regards to outpost and base design or different? Will vehicles play any role in taking over an objective other than trying to get to the base or repel people away, like it should have been all along?

The burden should always be on the attacker, it's the other way around now.
Here's hoping...

I mean, Amerish IS better in this regard, right?
You actually have to get out and capture points, while spawns are put in a position where they can't just be driven up on to camp.

[Beerbeer]

What I don't get is that the current base design actually encourages people not to defend. I don't get it? It's not fun for the attackers swarming an indefensible, empty base anymore than it is for the defenders getting vehicle spawn camped. It's about as illogical as it can get.

[Whiteagle]

What I don't get is that the current base design actually encourages people not to defend. I don't get it? It's not fun for the attackers swarming an indefensible, empty base anymore than it is for the defenders getting vehicle spawn camped. It's about as illogical as it can get.
True enough...

...I remember coming into the Beta wondering why all these militaries had were Pre-fab shacks trying to pass themselves off as office buildings...

...Really it makes one wonder why they didn't have more fortification type building assets like Figment been suggesting to begin with.

[Figment]

My bet is they looked at it as a generic shooter and therefore looked at how other generic shooters without tanks and aircraft and randomised spawn design and no conquest goals or protection goals set up their levels and then forgot that instead of a linear fixed approach route there's a 540 degrees approach route. They didn't look at it as a RTS game at all, even though at its core, PlanetSide is like a self-running RTS, just without one person strictly controlling the units.

On top of that, looks like they wanted each base to be unique, so they made every building modular so they could easily build new layouts with different terrain and modules. They just forgot what disconnecting modules does to gameplay (see above).


You can clearly see this 2D thinking in a 3D world when you look at the position of spawnpoints often being at the edge of an outpost, while the objectives are at the other end or in the middle, while the far end is quite open for attackers to get in. They probably hoped that this would encourage fights from one side of a base to the other, while forgetting you can also just drive around or come from the other side and immediately start camping.

[SturmovikDrakon]

Sad thing is, the original PS2 base designs DID allow for progression. Do you remember that awesome picture of a Mossie hovering over the new Zurvan, with its walls and force fields? And I remember Higby describing a progression-based fight with the ability to capture the CY and move forwards.

Now, the PS2 Tech plant was still a LESSER base design than most PS1 bases, even though they were more defensible. The PS1 bases gave you feeling of real urgency when you were rushing up from the spawn to the CY. Sometimes you'd be fighting just outside the walls (for the tower), then pushed back onto the walls then into the CY then into the building and eventually back to the spawns. Even when losing it could be totally awesome.

I understand why they wouldn't want every base to play like that, but to take away one of the two that did occasionally produce a longer fight is just plain silly on SOE's part.

http://p.twimg.com/AcsrMvkCQAAdBTW.jpg:large
http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2012/02/PS2-Screens-the9-AmpStation4.jpg

the design could have allowed for progressive capture over the two front courtyards, moving into the facility itself, and finally ending at the back (or the main structure)

either way, a missed opportunity

Also... I actually like the way the walls/towers looked here, they were simple and didn't look like they took up any extra, unnecessary space

[Whiteagle]

My bet is they looked at it as a generic shooter and therefore looked at how other generic shooters without tanks and aircraft and randomised spawn design and no conquest goals or protection goals set up their levels and then forgot that instead of a linear fixed approach route there's a 540 degrees approach route. They didn't look at it as a RTS game at all, even though at its core, PlanetSide is like a self-running RTS, just without one person strictly controlling the units.

On top of that, looks like they wanted each base to be unique, so they made every building modular so they could easily build new layouts with different terrain and modules. They just forgot what disconnecting modules does to gameplay (see above).
Actually... no...

I mean, in this post-Halo age, most generic FPS' worth any salt at least keep in mind the concept of defensible positions...

Even the modular building isn't an excuse, since as I said before they should have had more fortification assets to begin with!

You can clearly see this 2D thinking in a 3D world when you look at the position of spawnpoints often being at the edge of an outpost, while the objectives are at the other end or in the middle, while the far end is quite open for attackers to get in. They probably hoped that this would encourage fights from one side of a base to the other, while forgetting you can also just drive around or come from the other side and immediately start camping.
That's not even 2-dimensional thinking, linear layouts like that are more 1.5D...

...And it's still baffling, as even linear map layouts (Primarily my experience with most TF2 modes) would have places for both attackers AND defenders to entrench themselves.

http://p.twimg.com/AcsrMvkCQAAdBTW.jpg:large
http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2012/02/PS2-Screens-the9-AmpStation4.jpg
Ok, those are awesome, but I can see why they didn't make it into the final product...

Also... I actually like the way the walls/towers looked here, they were simple and didn't look like they took up any extra, unnecessary space
...Namely that the walls and towers here look VERY resource intensive...

Not that they don't look awesome, it just looks like each is a building in its own right, and probably would require a great deal of "Hand-crafting" to fit correctly.

...Plus are those sticks poking out of it suppose to be Phalanx Cannons?!

Anywho, had some thoughts on improving the current Major Facilities if anyone wants to hear them...

[SturmovikDrakon]

Ok, those are awesome, but I can see why they didn't make it into the final product...

Why not?

...Namely that the walls and towers here look VERY resource intensive...

Not that they don't look awesome, it just looks like each is a building in its own right, and probably would require a great deal of "Hand-crafting" to fit correctly.

...Plus are those sticks poking out of it suppose to be Phalanx Cannons?!

Anywho, had some thoughts on improving the current Major Facilities if anyone wants to hear them...

I don't see how, considering it looks like they are less detailed and more flat compared to this

http://pikigeek.com/files/2012/06/PS2_E3.Screen_11.jpg

I just hope that as the game becomes more optimized, and people will upgrade their hardware, we can come back to these more densely packed, streamlined bases

[Whiteagle]

I don't see how, considering it looks like they are less detailed and more flat compared to this
Well look at the scale of them compared to that Vanguard man...

They look to be about two to three times larger then what we have in the game currently.
And I meant it when I said they were buildings in and of themselves, the tops appear to be enclosed structures about the width of most mid-sized buildings in the game.

[SturmovikDrakon]

Well look at the scale of them compared to that Vanguard man...

They look to be about two to three times larger then what we have in the game currently.
And I meant it when I said they were buildings in and of themselves, the tops appear to be enclosed structures about the width of most mid-sized buildings in the game.

Hmm

I guess you're right

The walls look like bunkers

Man, what I'd give to just test those assets myself, in a separate server

[Whiteagle]

Hmm

I guess you're right

The walls look like bunkers

Man, what I'd give to just test those assets myself, in a separate server
I know right?

One of those wall towers alone would make a better Outpost then most we have now...


...Malorn, are you reading this?
See if you can't get your hands on those old assets.

You can call it "The Stand" (subtitle: Hope Rides Aaaaalloooooonnnneee!).

[Mordelicius]

The quickest fixes they can add to smaller outpost/bases :

1. Give spawn room 3 doors instead of 2. This is to prevent the tanks especially Magriders from camping and shooting perpendicular to the door. Infantry has no chance if a supposed tank go to a side of a steep cliff (something other tanks can't do) and blast players from the side as they exit. There's no way to hit back if they are hidden from the two narrow openings.

2. Double the width of the door. This makes it even harder for tanks to spawn camp because it will provide players much wider angles to hit back.

3. Open the ceiling up, shielded of course, to prevent Aircraft from easily camping the doorway egress areas.

4. Add an AA on the top outer corner on the spawn room that can be repaired from the inside. Again this is to stop aerial spawn campers. If players are stuck inside, there will be no way to destroy that AA turret if there are multitudes of trapped engineers healing it and soon that Aircraft will expire or fly away from attrition.

[capiqu]

Tech, and Amp stations should have spawn rooms in the main buildings just as Bio labs do. Keep 2 spawn facilities outside the main building on each side. These could serve as the towers in Planetside 1. The enemy can capture the outer spawn facilities and we would still have control of the main building. This would give us the great fight styles of Planetside 1 even bigger.

As far as the outpost. If you spawn at a tower in Planetside 1 and stick your head out a door, tanks and air would blow you away. Outside of any building your fair game. you cant take that away from tank drivers and flyers. But as some have pointed out, if the spawn and CC are on the same building you have a better shot at defending the outpost. Then it would be up to a greater number of enemy infantry to go in and take that CC from you and capture the outpost.
Also it would be nice to see additional equipment terminals in all those empty building as well as an additional spawn room which the enemy can capture and from which they can launch there attacks on the outpost CC building

[Figment]

As far as the outpost. If you spawn at a tower in Planetside 1 and stick your head out a door, tanks and air would blow you away. Outside of any building your fair game. you cant take that away from tank drivers and flyers.

On the other hand, one shouldn't make it too easy and infantry too vulnerable either.

There's predominantly need for balance in which skill determines who gains the upper hand. Infantry by definition have the weakest tools to work with, they must be able to use the environment to their advantage in order to compete.


Having no defensive fortifications means infantry cannot compete at all. You'd also never get significant infantry vs infanty outside without continuous dominant meddling by air and vehicles.

Whether you like it or not, competitive infantry in- and outdoor play is a major if not the attraction for FPS players in general, especially if they're not allowed to directly compete with air and vehicles in most situations.

One should not make a class feel incompetent, ignored or otherwise useless. You will lose those players and/or a playstyle variety. Ultimately, that makes the game more uniform, predictable and bland, while variety and unpredictability and competition is what makes a pvp game thrive.

[Whiteagle]

Tech, and Amp stations should have spawn rooms in the main buildings just as Bio labs do. Keep 2 spawn facilities outside the main building on each side. These could serve as the towers in Planetside 1. The enemy can capture the outer spawn facilities and we would still have control of the main building. This would give us the great fight styles of Planetside 1 even bigger.
Well I'd agree with moving the spawns into the main structures of the Tech Plants and Amp Stations, I think the current satellite point spawns are good enough for attackers...

As far as the outpost. If you spawn at a tower in Planetside 1 and stick your head out a door, tanks and air would blow you away. Outside of any building your fair game. you cant take that away from tank drivers and flyers. But as some have pointed out, if the spawn and CC are on the same building you have a better shot at defending the outpost. Then it would be up to a greater number of enemy infantry to go in and take that CC from you and capture the outpost.
Well I don't think we'll ever be completely free of aerial camping, since swarms of A2G will hover when ever they get a chance, but it would be nice if there were areas in the game with a definite need for infantry involvement.

Also it would be nice to see additional equipment terminals in all those empty building as well as an additional spawn room which the enemy can capture and from which they can launch there attacks on the outpost CC building
Don't know about extra terminals, but there isn't a need for Enemy spawns at Outpost...

I mean, any competent attacking force brings an S-AMS along with them, or at least a Squad Beacon in case things aren't as easy as they were expecting.

Do they really need the advantage of a local spawn for a simple Outpost when they already have the initiative?

Having no defensive fortifications means infantry cannot compete at all. You'd also never get significant infantry vs infanty outside without continuous dominant meddling by air and vehicles.

Whether you like it or not, competitive infantry in- and outdoor play is a major if not the attraction for FPS players in general, especially if they're not allowed to directly compete with air and vehicles in most situations.

One should not make a class feel incompetent, ignored or otherwise useless. You will lose those players and/or a playstyle variety. Ultimately, that makes the game more uniform, predictable and bland, while variety and unpredictability and competition is what makes a pvp game thrive.
Indeed, which is why I agree that there needs to be an eventual overhaul of the current Outpost with more defensible building assets.

These "Office-huts of the Future-as-designed-by-Alcoa" are little more then just that; futuristic set clutter in the vague shape of buildings.

Just because most Vehicles can't drive right inside of them doesn't make them a proper position for Infantry to fight them from.

[Figment]

Alright so I made a case study of Aurora Materials Lab, which is a base that changes hands constantly right now because every time you walk in, you already won. Currently all you need to do is get an AMS to the central CY, a tank on the south spawn exit and you win.

I've tried to give a brief impression of the situation as is below.


http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4089/casestudyaml.jpg (http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4089/casestudyaml.jpg)

Then I've made some modifications (probably a few more than absolutely necessary). However, I'd say it's still pretty easy to enter, but would provide an organised assault with some challenges when defended.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2016/casestudyaml2.jpg (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2016/casestudyaml2.jpg)

Defense should be easier then now, but they'll still have to be very flexible and active. Infantry is now very important in securing the base, while vehicles are important in moving up to the base.

I've also tried to ensure there's plenty of infiltrator objectives, from gate securing to SOI destruction to SCU destruction and CC hacking.

Also note the SOI generator (in CY here, could be located on top of a building too).

Could add some elevators at wall walk ends next to buildings so people can get to the roof more easily when walking along the outpost wall.

Thoughts?

[Canaris]

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2016/casestudyaml2.jpg (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2016/casestudyaml2.jpg)

Defense should be easier then now, but they'll still have to be very flexible and active. Infantry is now very important in securing the base, while vehicles are important in moving up to the base.

I've also tried to ensure there's plenty of infiltrator objectives, from gate securing to SOI destruction to SCU destruction and CC hacking.

Also note the SOI generator (in CY here, could be located on top of a building too).

Could add some elevators at wall walk ends next to buildings so people can get to the roof more easily when walking along the outpost wall.

Thoughts?

I would really love to try out that gameplay, that's for sure. SOI would be great to have back though I think 3 shield gens for an outpost might be overkill ;)

[Figment]

I would really love to try out that gameplay, that's for sure. SOI would be great to have back though I think 3 shield gens for an outpost might be overkill ;)

Just showcasing the options. :) Having a good outer perimeter is pretty important though. If vehicles can always get in on their own, that severely reduces the importance of the blockade runner Sunderer upgrade. I'd rather create some reliance on infantry, which truth be told, can get in pretty easily still.

Still, I'd like to see people use a blockade runner Sundy with minefield upgrade now and then to take out a shield gen objective by running the gates, rather than always bring the AMS variant because it is more +10 exp pts. :)

[Canaris]

Just showcasing the options. :) Having a good outer perimeter is pretty important though. If vehicles can always get in on their own, that severely reduces the importance of the blockade runner Sunderer upgrade. I'd rather create some reliance on infantry, which truth be told, can get in pretty easily still.

Still, I'd like to see people use a blockade runner Sundy with minefield upgrade now and then to take out a shield gen objective by running the gates, rather than always bring the AMS variant because it is more +10 exp pts. :)

ahh I see now sorry thought it was you need to drop the three gens for access, instead they power they're own indivdual gates. That's clever why I was worried over the 3 was having to do whack a mole to keep them down, instead you can drop one and have that route in. No that's a great idea. Was eating lunch while looking at it, had ham and cheese on the mind :doh: lawl :D

[Hmr85]

Awesome, I love it and would love to give that outpost a try. SOE hire this man.

[Figment]

Btw, I'm pondering on how infiltrators could have a stealth edge opposed to LA's mobility edge in taking these generators out. Perhaps the general overload warning doesn't appear as fast with different grades of hacking. Then people have equal time to respond, but they'll have to pay more attention to the overload and hacking sounds than the facility warnings.

[Crator]

Then I've made some modifications (probably a few more than absolutely necessary). However, I'd say it's still pretty easy to enter, but would provide an organised assault with some challenges when defended.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2016/casestudyaml2.jpg (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2016/casestudyaml2.jpg)

Defense should be easier then now, but they'll still have to be very flexible and active. Infantry is now very important in securing the base, while vehicles are important in moving up to the base.

This is excellent! Can we please try this? Where's Malorn?

[Whiteagle]

Alright so I made a case study of Aurora Materials Lab, which is a base that changes hands constantly right now because every time you walk in, you already won. Currently all you need to do is get an AMS to the central CY, a tank on the south spawn exit and you win.

...


Then I've made some modifications (probably a few more than absolutely necessary). However, I'd say it's still pretty easy to enter, but would provide an organised assault with some challenges when defended.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2016/casestudyaml2.jpg (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2016/casestudyaml2.jpg)

Defense should be easier then now, but they'll still have to be very flexible and active. Infantry is now very important in securing the base, while vehicles are important in moving up to the base.

I've also tried to ensure there's plenty of infiltrator objectives, from gate securing to SOI destruction to SCU destruction and CC hacking.

Also note the SOI generator (in CY here, could be located on top of a building too).

Could add some elevators at wall walk ends next to buildings so people can get to the roof more easily when walking along the outpost wall.

Thoughts?
Love it.

Especially love the SoI jammer, since every outpost seems to have those big ass antenna but only a few use them to mark the position of the Control Console.

The only thing I don't understand is Shield Generator C, since it only covers a small entryway...
...Kind of a waste of a shield generator if you ask me.

Btw, I'm pondering on how infiltrators could have a stealth edge opposed to LA's mobility edge in taking these generators out. Perhaps the general overload warning doesn't appear as fast with different grades of hacking. Then people have equal time to respond, but they'll have to pay more attention to the overload and hacking sounds than the facility warnings.
Easy, give them a suit option that allows them to carry more anti-personal explosives!

Smart cloakers should be using their stealth to disrupt the enemies ability to move effectively, and what better bait to send them to the spawn countdown then an overloaded generator?

[Figment]

Love it.

:)

Especially love the SoI jammer, since every outpost seems to have those big ass antenna but only a few use them to mark the position of the Control Console.

And they can have various radii, obviously. :)

The only thing I don't understand is Shield Generator C, since it only covers a small entryway...
...Kind of a waste of a shield generator if you ask me.

It is a shortcut really, forces normal ground troops to move through Building B and Light Assaults or infils to open up that route to medics, heavy assaults, engineers, etc. I didn't want to just put another stair or tunnel there and felt yet another vehicle entry point might one too many options.

There should be a rather good AMS spot out there for north CY control (out of direct sight of the keep and wedged in between two generators).

But as said before, it's also a showcase. In this case, one spot where one could look at closing and opening alternate access routes. A nice job for infils.


Easy, give them a suit option that allows them to carry more anti-personal explosives!

I'd prefer plain ol' PS1 mines and boomers. ;)

Smart cloakers should be using their stealth to disrupt the enemies ability to move effectively, and what better bait to send them to the spawn countdown then an overloaded generator?

Obviously. Hence the three gens, SCU, SOI control and CC. :) However, a Light Assault can do that too. I'm more thinking of ways to make the hacking abilities interesting to cert into. I was pondering on a timed overload of a generator, but that might be a tad too powerful, even if it does take longer to complete (could use a timed overload to overload several gens at once).



Another thing they might look at eventually - and which is something I'm afraid of they will - is to add virals. The old radar viral was IMO too powerful, what with blotting out everything. There's only one thing more powerful than that (and more frustrating), which would be a chat communications disruption. But that'd only affect non-external voice players.

Clearly the open door and term thing or even turret thing isn't really something to cert into anymore, since every basic infil can do that for some reason (why doesn't one have to cert into it?). If we had NTU we could have the drain back. But the viral shouldn't last as long as it used to and shouldn't be unrestricted, as it used to be (very annoying). It could however open up behind the lines work again though.

Resource production is another thing that could be affected if there's some sort of generator to hold.

If there would be searchlights or as someone else said, alarms that can be triggered, then those could be targets for infils as well. Not the most high profile ones obviously. But triggering an alarm or disabling one could be a nice decoy and disabling lights could create a black out.

The problem with the viral concept that in every zerg, there'll be trillions of people with it, so you'd eventually never fight a fight without virals because people would just upload them to speed things up and make it easier (see PS1, very annoying). Any virals should be very, very temporarily and clear to people trying to do something that there's actually a viral active. The old one didn't take much skill to use tbh, took way more skill to disable virals, since you could hardly reach it.

IFF shields/doors (opening routes) and vehicle jacking/deconstruction, as well as taking over terminals (which IMO should be temporarily, not permanently to avoid abuse) would be the easiest to balance.

Another thing could be that the hacking of a CC would be more... subtle, masked if you will. So it would only flash once in a while, rather than constantly, making it more likely to hack it right under their noses. The whole "point neutral" first thing would have to go, it'd be way too obvious, unless the second bit would go very fast. Of course, that would require a REK style hack, not an area influence thing.

Lastly, spotting and marking targets for support aircraft, like the Liberator gunship, with a Laze Pointer device could be interesting. Though the Lib should first be turned into a high alt or extremely low hit and run aircraft, rather than a "I'll just linger here to provide overwatch and farm" unit. >.>

But really, that's more a topic of its own.

[Whiteagle]

It is a shortcut really, forces normal ground troops to move through Building B and Light Assaults or infils to open up that route to medics, heavy assaults, engineers, etc. I didn't want to just put another stair or tunnel there and felt yet another vehicle entry point might one too many options.

There should be a rather good AMS spot out there for north CY control (out of direct sight of the keep and wedged in between two generators).

But as said before, it's also a showcase. In this case, one spot where one could look at closing and opening alternate access routes. A nice job for infils.
That's the problem though, you are using a single shield generator as a man door...

Now if it also shielded, say, where that eastern stretch of wall next to the main building currently is, then it would make a lot more sense.

I'd prefer plain ol' PS1 mines and boomers. ;)
Well my thinking here would probably require a revamping of how you carry explosive equipment, but the idea would be that Infiltrators would have suit options that would allow them to carry AP mines and C4 at the same time or a much larger amount of ether explosive.

A few of the other classes could get something like this as well, where an Engineer's "Utility Pouch" suit would allow him to carry all three types of deployed explosive at once.

Obviously. Hence the three gens, SCU, SOI control and CC. :) However, a Light Assault can do that too. I'm more thinking of ways to make the hacking abilities interesting to cert into. I was pondering on a timed overload of a generator, but that might be a tad too powerful, even if it does take longer to complete (could use a timed overload to overload several gens at once).
Actually, there is an idea...

A Certification that replaces that rather useless Radar Dartgun with a timed "Hackbox" that could be attached to hackables and other interactive objectives, allowing you to give the impression that there is an Infiltrator there when you're on the other side of the base.

Further ranks could increase the amount of time you can set the delay for, and it could have a possible additional function of not allowing an enemy to interact with the object it's attached to until they "remove" it.

Another thing they might look at eventually - and which is something I'm afraid of they will - is to add virals. The old radar viral was IMO too powerful, what with blotting out everything. There's only one thing more powerful than that (and more frustrating), which would be a chat communications disruption. But that'd only affect non-external voice players.

Clearly the open door and term thing or even turret thing isn't really something to cert into anymore, since every basic infil can do that for some reason (why doesn't one have to cert into it?). If we had NTU we could have the drain back. But the viral shouldn't last as long as it used to and shouldn't be unrestricted, as it used to be (very annoying). It could however open up behind the lines work again though.
Well certing into Hacking supposedly make the hack timer faster, but yeah it is kind of underwhelming.

I don't know how virals would work...
...I mean, unless you plan for the SoI antenna to also provide radar coverage which an Infiltrator could reduce or otherwise screw with, I don't know how much of the game they'd really fit into...

I just had the idea for Infiltrators to be able to infect Vehicles with various status effects, but I don't know how effective of an option that'd be for anti-Vehicle combat or what it's counter would be...

Resource production is another thing that could be affected if there's some sort of generator to hold.
Eh... I'm not seeing this, not with anything like the current resource system anyways...

If there would be searchlights or as someone else said, alarms that can be triggered, then those could be targets for infils as well. Not the most high profile ones obviously. But triggering an alarm or disabling one could be a nice decoy and disabling lights could create a black out.
This might work, but it would require bases to be "wired" with security and lighting systems...

Right now the lights just... are, and I've never found it got TOO dark to notice movement...

The problem with the viral concept that in every zerg, there'll be trillions of people with it, so you'd eventually never fight a fight without virals because people would just upload them to speed things up and make it easier (see PS1, very annoying). Any virals should be very, very temporarily and clear to people trying to do something that there's actually a viral active. The old one didn't take much skill to use tbh, took way more skill to disable virals, since you could hardly reach it.
Yeah, like I said before I don't know of many ways they could actually be implemented in the current game...

...There just isn't any infrastructure to sabotage outside of isolated turrets and terminals, and flipping those over to your factions control is often more useful then anything else...

IFF shields/doors (opening routes) and vehicle jacking/deconstruction, as well as taking over terminals (which IMO should be temporarily, not permanently to avoid abuse) would be the easiest to balance.
Well I don't know about outright deconstruction (that sounds more like it make a great high-end Anti-Vehicle mine), it would be cool if Infiltrators could "pull" enemies out of their Vehicles, possibly with the certification leading up to jacking the Vehicle entirely.

As for the permanence of terminal hacks... well, that's kind of the only way they're really useful right now.

A defender has to ether destroy the terminal and repair it as an Engineer or grab an Infiltrator to re-hack it, busying what would otherwise be another stream of bullets to walk through and denying them that asset in the meantime.

I will admit that on a successful defense they should flip back over automatically, but yeah, one of the only useful means of sabotage Infiltrators have right now is locking terminals and turrets with hacks.

Another thing could be that the hacking of a CC would be more... subtle, masked if you will. So it would only flash once in a while, rather than constantly, making it more likely to hack it right under their noses. The whole "point neutral" first thing would have to go, it'd be way too obvious, unless the second bit would go very fast. Of course, that would require a REK style hack, not an area influence thing.
...Yeah, that probably isn't going to work.
For one, most people just scramble around the map cluelessly to begin with.
I've seen two push leaders get the Zerg stranded at Biolabs because they didn't have the sense to check the fucking map to see when they were in danger of getting flanked, and that was just TODAY.

The current capture set up is too subtle as it is, this would just allow a single Infiltrator to back-capture everything.

Lastly, spotting and marking targets for support aircraft, like the Liberator gunship, with a Laze Pointer device could be interesting. Though the Lib should first be turned into a high alt or extremely low hit and run aircraft, rather than a "I'll just linger here to provide overwatch and farm" unit. >.>
Well, I think the Liberator is in a good enough place as it is, its more that the Anti-air game sucked soo bad that no one knows how to use it.

Now being able to paint a target sounds like a good idea, but all units can Spot already and some sort of "specialized" weapon targeting would be very hard to get just right.


Still you are right, this is only tangentially related to Base Design...

[Figment]

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/3290/amsoutpost01.jpg (http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/3290/amsoutpost01.jpg)

Concept for a hilltop outpost design without solid spawns, but using an AMS inside a covered position instead.

In this case, it's a strategic node between roads, primarily aimed at controlling the roads. Could be possible to add a tunnel to the east fortification and use some walkway (doubling as roofing) to cover the approach to the western side of the fortified passage. That would make the infantry slightly less vulnerable to Liberators. In fact, covering a large section of the central square with parapet/roofed catwalks could provide quite a bit of additional defensive advantages.

Note that the roads should really, really choke any heavy armour trying to get through. Since these are bunkers with steep cliffs, walls aren't as needed.

Of course this one wouldn't control a hex, it'd simply be a strategic location to control the nearby roads with infantry. What it does need, is enough shelter to move around and provide time to fire. It must be noted that all buildings are defense based and as such provide a different type of gameplay than the regular square buildings as the buildings should provide an edge over vehicles.

[Whiteagle]

Great design man!

You can't use the counter argument on turtling against this, since the benifit provided is purely tactical and otherwise has no effect on the overall Meta-game.

THIS is what that damn Crown should be, a defensive hardpoint from which offensive pressure can be applied, instead of an XP farm!

[Figment]

Here's another quick case study.

Very quick, not entirely happy with it yet.

Current situation for Palos Solar Array:

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/832/casestudypsa1.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/832/casestudypsa1.jpg)

Palos Solar Array with some fortification revisions:

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/7163/casestudypsa2.jpg (http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/7163/casestudypsa2.jpg)


Was pondering on using the rock outcrop to the right side of this image as a tunneled gate for infantry as well with two bunkers built into the rocks.

It would be possible to add some more stuff further out like with the previous case study (tank traps etc). I'm not sure if it's really needed. What I did notice about this base is that the west side of it (right side here) is hardly used due to the current proximity to the border of the map. This may change in the future if the border changes.

PS: plugged the PS2 forum thread on reddit: http://redd.it/15vvlv

[Figment]

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6774/towerfloorplan.jpg (http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6774/towerfloorplan.jpg)

Floor plan for the tower keep as per the Palos Solar Array example.

[Hmr85]

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6774/towerfloorplan.jpg (http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6774/towerfloorplan.jpg)

Floor plan for the tower keep as per the Palos Solar Array example.

I love the layout of the tower design here but I feel like if your going to put the SCU back in the towers it should of went 3rd or 4th floor. The 2nd floor is just way to close to the bulk majority of the fighting. The assaulting force will spend their time going after that instead of trying to take the CC on 3rd floor. Not to mention that way you can spread out the fighting some.It will also give the attackers the option to gal drop on top and drop the D at the tower if they are not watching all their exits from above.

Idk, just a thought.

[Figment]

The idea behind the SCU placement near the spawns, is to have the same effect as killing the spawntubes in PS1: you would have to have real control over the spawns in order to stop defenders from spawning, but it wouldn't involve as much camping.

Speaking of that door and stairs leading to the SCU, to save space and polygons, there could be a small elevator design too, as long as the exit is level, so you can see what you'd exit into and clear it first.

If you place it on the third or fourth floor, you get the same effect as you had in PS2's tech test: it'd end the fight extra quick as defenders wouldn't have a chance to stop it from blowing.



Btw, as per the info in the Palos Solar Array image, since it is actually defendable as a whole, I wouldn't mind a single wave capture point here (short capture time). The CC would be the most likely target then and would be very viable through a Gal Drop attack thanks to the choke point designs nearby.

Light Assaults (even if they get in) would have a harder time. Infiltrators could have a go at it as well.


I'm also pondering a two-step CC capture, where one CC would be in the top-most room (with the two stairs to the roof).

Alternatively, I'd like there to be a SOI spire on top with controls either outside or in that room. This way, you could call for reinforcements by drop by taking and holding that particular level of the base.



But yes, the keep is designed with Gal Drops as a very important strategy in mind. In fact, the entire SOI generator would be there to make both gal drops, direct ground assaults and therefore and perimeter defenses more important.

[Paperboy]

Some bases are just way too large and have way too many polygons, we don't need gargantuan bases with open holes, instead of taking what was good from planetside and scale it up slightly and adding a bit more details they decided to go godzilla on this game.

[Figment]

Oh btw, one thing to note about that tower, refinements would include external shape alterations of the exterior wall in particular. It's currently a block, but with proper extentions outwards, several corners to hide in and behind can be created both inside and outside.

I should probably also point out better which internal walls would be ballustrades and which solid walls.

[Sledgecrushr]

Alright so I made a case study of Aurora Materials Lab, which is a base that changes hands constantly right now because every time you walk in, you already won. Currently all you need to do is get an AMS to the central CY, a tank on the south spawn exit and you win.

I've tried to give a brief impression of the situation as is below.


http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4089/casestudyaml.jpg (http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4089/casestudyaml.jpg)

Then I've made some modifications (probably a few more than absolutely necessary). However, I'd say it's still pretty easy to enter, but would provide an organised assault with some challenges when defended.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2016/casestudyaml2.jpg (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2016/casestudyaml2.jpg)

Defense should be easier then now, but they'll still have to be very flexible and active. Infantry is now very important in securing the base, while vehicles are important in moving up to the base.

I've also tried to ensure there's plenty of infiltrator objectives, from gate securing to SOI destruction to SCU destruction and CC hacking.

Also note the SOI generator (in CY here, could be located on top of a building too).

Could add some elevators at wall walk ends next to buildings so people can get to the roof more easily when walking along the outpost wall.

Thoughts?


I want to play in this new and improved base.

[Figment]

I want to play in this new and improved base.

Anything in particular you like about it? Or more the entire package? Any thoughts on the proposed soi generator? :)

[RykerStruvian]

Figment, everything you're showing here is absolutely awesome. I especially love the inclusion of fortified pillboxes...Its just absolutely mindblowing that for being a hundred+ year war, the absolute absence of such primitive fortifications don't exist in any format in the current game. These designs just look like a ton of fun.

[Archonzero]

Figment I love your ideas man. They are great outpost redesigns. I had a braindump on major base design an took an approach, while considering the previous title an twitch FPS/Esports concepts for modern shooters. An imo large numbers of vehicles shouldn't have a major effect on taking a base, taking a base should be purely about the infantry (just like real life CQC/urban combat). Vehicles should have an affect on securing footholds up to the base an lock down the outer defenses from exterior counter assaults, maybe sticking their nose into the inner court (at a significant risk.. it should be an infantry playground an urban combat is a deathtrap for vehicular combat)

Using the variety of building designs currently available should fill out the inner facility layout of rooms, open an closed hallways, interior ramparts, with capture points of various types. A spawn room that has access routes underground as well as mainfloor/upper floor access/exit points. This way the spawn room isn't a roach motel, still allows a defense force plenty of fighting chance.

Taking large an major facilities could protect infantry from the majority of vehicle slaughter (an most of the airborne bombardment) as well, IT would promote the Esport twitch arena style combat that Higby wanted, by making the interior layout "almost" untouchable by massive air an ground vehicle bombardment, until the shielded gatehouses or shielded air domes are disabled.

So I played around with the idea of biolab biodomes (being the only real base design that offers any real infantry vs infantry refuge. An scratched out a basic design idea with simple but easy to understand layout/improvement?

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/7660/basedesigndump.jpg

First off

(A) Gatehouse Towers
each tower has 2 AV guns, there are 2, 3 or 4 gatehouses depending on the base design/location.
Accessibility
- jump lift access up an down (just like current tower designs)
- outside, from along the walls, jump troops, galaxy deployed, spawn beacon, hot drop.
- inside, access points at the ground level from the inside of the base (just like current designs)

(B) Wall Towers
2 AV guns wall level
Top of tower has heavy overhead screening to shield infantry
Accessibility
- from the walls, jump troops or galaxy dropped assault teams, spawn beacon, hot drop.
- each Tower has a fortified catwalk bridge that ties into the spawn barracks at an oulying forward camp
- Shielded doorway - allows access inside the base to an upper level building of the inner court.
- hackable door, to disarm or rearm shielding.

(C) AA Towers
2 AA guns per tower
Accessibility
- Shielded portals prevent bombing to the lower portion (Faction passable only? Hackable bypass?)
- Lift pads carry/descend players
- One way to gain access to the lower tower rooms that access the Upper Deck of the upper level.

(D) Bridge Ramparts
One Bridge extends to each outlying base camp, ties in to that camps spawn barracks.
Defensibility
- Crates, Crenelations, an sections of overhead blast cover. Very similar to most vehicle bridges, but with more cover for infantry fighting infantry assaults pushing across.
Solid Line linking to B Tower
- Would be an underground hallway/room layout, that extends to the barracks of an outlying forward camp. This allows defenders to transport materials, troops and equipment safely to those forward areas during an attack. (similar in concept to the trench tunnels on esamir at some bases)
- This allows attackers and defenders multiple avenues of approach. Tunnel system can come up into either a buiding inside the inner courtyard of the base itself or into the tower.

Outer Base Wall
- red dots are AI turret emplacements
-wall design aesthetics can be identical to the current design, just no gaping ground level openings.

Airpads
Airpads if placed outside on the upper dome, would have terminals inside on the upper level.
If the airpad is placed under the shielded section of the dome, then they would auto launch up an out.

(1) SHIELDED sections
- protection from enemy vehicles passing, shelling or bombarding into the facility.
- Infantry can pass through them without harm (other than the enemy shooting them) via lift pads, galaxy drop or jumpjet
-Dome Shield - generator located on the upper level.
-Gatehouse Shields - generators located inside the inner courtyard.

Inner Court - very similar to building sprawls outside of the main structure of current base designs, aside from a few key modifications.
- Would have a layout of single an two level structures along the outersections of the inner court.
- Catwalks, accessible from the multi level buildings that go to the Upper level or bridge to other buildings inside the inner court. This will offer a very Core Combat playstyle, where the enemy isn't purely on the ground, an area that acts like a playground for light assault an recon kits.
- 2-3 ammo towers, one near each gatehouse
- Central main building that connects to the upper level, contains vehicle spawn points, equipment terminals, as well houses the SCU shield generator.
- 3-4 buildings along the outer inner courtyard that access rooms in the underground section.

Underground
- Corridors, supply rooms with equipment terminals
- Medical Bay
- MAINSPAWN + Defense teleporters (should be 2-3) to Upper level Rapid Response Teleport room (RRT).
- SCU and CCR shield gen

Upper level
- Air terminals
- A series of Supply rooms with equipment terminals
- Upper level pillbox style balcony bunkers that allow defenders to view/overlap the inner courtyard from above.
- Catwalk access points leading down to ground level buildings along the outer sections of the inner court.
- Dome shield generator room. Protected by a hackable shielded doorway.
- Command Control Room, protected by a hackable shielded doorway.
- Rapid Resonse Teleports in rooms with faction only barriers.


A layout like this would make attacking a defended Major installation will require the attacking force to secure the outlying camps FIRST to guarantee success. Also to consider the more protected and lack of easy access into bases would see a more frequent use in Galaxy drops, to secure the outer walls an upper sections.

Additions? critiques? speculations?