Make spawns centralized underground?

[Methonius]

I propose a solution to not only camping of spawns from vehicles but a more centralized location to make defense easier.

Amp Station: Put the spawn either on the top of the base inside that dome like area and make a room with different ways leading into the main room underneath or create a room undergound in the main facility under the main vehicle bay that has ways that lead up to different areas in the main facility.

Tech Plant: Put the spawn room above the area were the cap point is, there is a lot of space to fill in that huge room and have multiple ways leading down to the platforms near the gen and cap point. Could even put it on top of the roof of that building by adding another level so its between that main room and the way up to the top of the tech plant to defend both assault directions easier.

Bio Dome: The spawn should be directly underneath the SCU within the main battle area in the center with tunnels going to different buildings within the superstructure.

Outposts: Spawn should be underground with tunnels that lead to the different structures/bunkers within the outpost to make it more unpredictable were the defenders will attack from.

Constructive posts only please.

[SKYeXile]

I think they should add 2 more underground levels to each base, the first having the spawn room and the second having the SCU.

[AThreatToYou]

IIRC, all base spawns in PS1 were underground. This was a good feature and should be re-implemented into PS2.

I think they should add 2 more underground levels to each base, the first having the spawn room and the second having the SCU.

[bpostal]

I've heard for technical reasons they can't put structures underground, a similar idea should be implemented though.

[Ghoest9]

Spawn camping is not a a problem.
IT DOESNT NEED A SOLUTION.


The only problem is that we have players stupid enough to feed the campers when they should realize they have lost the battle.

[Davelantor]

We need big underground facilities to be able to have some sensible infantry only combat ...

[EVILoHOMER]

I've heard for technical reasons they can't put structures underground, a similar idea should be implemented though.

Well then Everquest Next is ducked....


There shouldn't be any reason, they made the engine, they can code it to allow them to do what they like.

[EVILoHOMER]

We need big underground facilities to be able to have some sensible infantry only combat ...

Na we just need cities like what was in the concept art.

[Mavvvy]

Spawn camping is not a a problem.
IT DOESNT NEED A SOLUTION.


The only problem is that we have players stupid enough to feed the campers when they should realize they have lost the battle.

I have to agree with this, its the one way shields that keep em there. If a lot of damage eventually could overload those shields I'm pretty sure people would fall back a lot quicker.

However I do think the defenders need better means of augmenting their defense. Bring back the tank traps, emp grenades or fields that can be deployed.

[Hmr85]

It does need a solution. The current facility designs are atrocious and honestly need a complete overhaul. Who's bright idea was it again to make the spawns outside the primary facility your defending along with you Generators?

IMO, move back to the PS1 style facility's. Expand the hallways to allow for a bigger population and move the spawns down under the base. End result is better quality game play along with it bringing back some semblance of infantry combat that does not include vehicles participating.

[PredatorFour]

Spawn camping is not a a problem.
IT DOESNT NEED A SOLUTION.


The only problem is that we have players stupid enough to feed the campers when they should realize they have lost the battle.

You never played PS1 right ?? Sometimes a fight was NEVER lost and could be won back against the odds. `Giving up` is cowardly and the easy way out.

Hmr85 above comment is spot on and exactly what this game needs.

[Whiteagle]

I've heard for technical reasons they can't put structures underground, a similar idea should be implemented though.
Well I think it's less "technical limitation" and more logistical pain-in-the-ass...

From the looks of it, Planetside 2 uses a landscaping system much like Second Life, where the "ground" is actually a two-dimensional sheet that is raised and lowered in areas to give the general feel of terrain.
Then, specially created objects have to be placed in more detailed geological effects, like cliff faces, boulders, or natural bridges.

Thus you can't actually "bury" anything, the best you can do is place something in a divot then cover it with a specially created in-game object textured to look like the ground.
Simple tunnels can be done because they're nothing more then a trench with a roof, but more complex structures would be little more then regular buildings made to look like they were covered in a rock facade.

...And from my Second Life Military experience, making a playable FPS map around the size of decent Outpost can take a couple of weeks to a MONTH, let alone the several DOZEN Outpost per Continent.

Personally, while more centralization is good, I think the Outpost Spawn Buildings themselves need a redesign into more viable defensive structures.
They are the last bastion from which a base defense can launch a counter attack after all, so why aren't they made like miniature keeps instead of Red-Cross shacks?

[p0intman]

I've heard for technical reasons they can't put structures underground, a similar idea should be implemented though.
far too defensible.

[Whiteagle]

far too defensible.
*Facepalm.*

Guys, I JUST got done explaining this...
They can't put anything UNDER the "ground" because there isn't anything beneath it...

You know when you "fall through the world"?
That's actually because the bottom of your character somehow materialized underneath where the game thinks "the ground" is.

[Hmr85]

They could do it. They just do not want to do it. I understand what you saying about it being just a hole. They could however adjust the terrain to be a giant ditch and then fill in from there. Like a giant U. Except when they are finish they grab all the sides and pull them back into make a level flat ground with a huge open area down below where your subterranean base would be.

If any of this makes any sense. What I am getting at is that it could be done.

[Whiteagle]

They could do it. They just do not want to do it. I understand what you saying about it being just a hole. They could however adjust the terrain to be a giant ditch and then fill in from there. Like a giant U. Except when they are finish they grab all the sides and pull them back into make a level flat ground with a huge open area down below where your subterranean base would be.

If any of this makes any sense. What I am getting at is that it could be done.
No they can't, they can't "fold" the sheet in any way.

It's sort of like those novelty desktop toys you see in stores, those screens with all the pins?
You can raise and lower each point on the map, but you can't move them to overlap another point.

Any time you see a bit of "ground" hanging over, that's actually a specialty object they put in that only LOOKS like a rock formation but is no different then a bridge or a building other then texture.
There have even been places where you can see they didn't place the object correctly; those rock and building bugs with "invisible bottoms".
If you look closely on South-eastern Indar, you can actually tell where the object begins and the ground ends.

[Canaris]

Spawn camping is not a a problem.
IT DOESNT NEED A SOLUTION.


The only problem is that we have players stupid enough to feed the campers when they should realize they have lost the battle.

I wanted to make a big long winded post about your statement but Spongebob can sum it up for me

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/29695830.jpg

[Qwan]

I dont think there going to change much as far as spawn rooms. I remember the devs talking about keeping the flow of battle going. By putting the spawn rooms in more secure areas (which would make sence), fights are over faster and are decisive when you have the numbers. This way the fight can move to the next base alot quicker and doesnt get stagnent like it does at the crown. Now I have to admit I do have alot of fun at the crown, the other night we had a kill fest defending the crown, and the certs were flowing in nicely. I believe the devs designed bases so that fights dont get stagnant that the fighting is all over the continent, and not just in one area. I mean you can stay and defend the crown with every man on that server but you will find yourself cut off, and soon lacking resources.

[Figment]

No they can't, they can't "fold" the sheet in any way.

It's sort of like those novelty desktop toys you see in stores, those screens with all the pins?
You can raise and lower each point on the map, but you can't move them to overlap another point.

Any time you see a bit of "ground" hanging over, that's actually a specialty object they put in that only LOOKS like a rock formation but is no different then a bridge or a building other then texture.
There have even been places where you can see they didn't place the object correctly; those rock and building bugs with "invisible bottoms".
If you look closely on South-eastern Indar, you can actually tell where the object begins and the ground ends.

They couldn't in PS1, I'm not so sure that it's true that they absolutely can't for PS2.

Even if so, there are two alternatives to what you could do:

1. Put a map on top of a map. Use bits of a map and turn them into objects, then cut out pieces from the map-object. You only need the top side afterall.

2. Cut holes just for the entry points, then fit in objects. This is what PS1 did, but PS1 couldn't edit parts of a map without having to reseed the entire thing. Note that PS2's engine can do that.

[Beerbeer]

Spawn camping is not a a problem.
IT DOESNT NEED A SOLUTION.


The only problem is that we have players stupid enough to feed the campers when they should realize they have lost the battle.

Yeah, like newbies who don't any better because nothing in this game is explained at all, or even remotely intuitive. Lets scare these players away. We don't need them.

[ShadetheDruid]

2. Cut holes just for the entry points, then fit in objects. This is what PS1 did, but PS1 couldn't edit parts of a map without having to reseed the entire thing. Note that PS2's engine can do that.

I was thinking something along those lines, but I don't know anything about how all this works so I didn't want to say something stupid. :p

Would the engine allow them to just cut entry holes and then have a structure under the actual terrain mesh? I mean, underground bases tend not to have windows, so them being surrounded by a void rather than any actual terrain wouldn't be an issue.

[Whiteagle]

They couldn't in PS1, I'm not so sure that it's true that they absolutely can't for PS2.
Not unless they want to rewrite the entire map engine...

They are able to edit the terrian so easiely because of this/

1. Put a map on top of a map. Use bits of a map and turn them into objects, then cut out pieces from the map-object. You only need the top side afterall.
Uh... I think the only way to do that would be create a giant complex out of map assets...

...That could end up making a small Outpost need the computing and design resources of a Major Facility.

2. Cut holes just for the entry points, then fit in objects. This is what PS1 did, but PS1 couldn't edit parts of a map without having to reseed the entire thing. Note that PS2's engine can do that.
I... don't think it works like that...
It's not paper... it's basically the 'bedrock' from Minecraft.

I was thinking something along those lines, but I don't know anything about how all this works so I didn't want to say something stupid. :p

Would the engine allow them to just cut entry holes and then have a structure under the actual terrain mesh? I mean, underground bases tend not to have windows, so them being surrounded by a void rather than any actual terrain wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah I don't think so...
I think the Terrain Mesh stretches across the entire world, allowing for each Continent to be connected by the "ocean" floor...

[Figment]

It would be nice to know what the engine can and can't do. I've not seen anywhere stated that this is something they can't do. I think I asked Arclegger about it at Gamescom and got the answer they could do a lot more with it, but truth be told, I can't quite remember the exact answer he gave. We were talking about several optional tangents and all back then as well.

As for giant complexes, I think if you're smart about your U's, you could make a whole system of U-shaped trenches to place objects at the bottom at, at which point you only need to cover up the trenches themselves since those buildings already have bunker ceilings, that shouldn't take a whole lot of computing power. :)


But cutting holes should be possible. Working underneath the map shouldn't provide any difficulties since the mesh is just a surface, not solid underneath.

[Hmr85]

If they can't build down. Then why don't the build up? Fill in that entire void in the middle section of the tech plant and you could fit in another 2 levels with stuff along with redoing the already available two sections of the tech plant.

You essentially get what you wanted underground just above it to some degree. Heck I swear I remember somebody doing a write up on it on here.

[Figment]

Yep you can do that. In fact, they should probably make rendering a lot easier if one only has to render what is in line of sight and around its exit points.

Bit like the Metroid Prime system where they only render the rooms around the room you're in now (there they used door opening time to allow for rendering to occur, clearly it's faster on a PC than a Wii though).

[Whiteagle]

It would be nice to know what the engine can and can't do. I've not seen anywhere stated that this is something they can't do. I think I asked Arclegger about it at Gamescom and got the answer they could do a lot more with it, but truth be told, I can't quite remember the exact answer he gave. We were talking about several optional tangents and all back then as well.
Well I'm basing my speculation from my experience in Second Life, in which the "Main land" is something similar to what I think SOE is trying for, albeit Second Life then subdivides everything into 254 square meter lots for processing...

If they can't build down. Then why don't the build up? Fill in that entire void in the middle section of the tech plant and you could fit in another 2 levels with stuff along with redoing the already available two sections of the tech plant.

You essentially get what you wanted underground just above it to some degree. Heck I swear I remember somebody doing a write up on it on here.
Yeah, this is what I'd want to see, Building Assets redone so the layout team can build DEFENSIBLE bases, as well as Major Facilities overhauled so that they are easier to access and move around for both attacking and defending Infantry.

One of the easeist things I can think of is replacing those Red-Cross Shack spawn rooms with a little keep design I call the "Alamo Mushroom".

[Hmr85]

A quick drawing I did to illustrate my point.
They could break up each of these individual floors with separate rooms and such.

Green = Flight pad / Observation deck
Black = Generator
Red = Spawn tubes
Yellow = CC/Cap point
Blue = Vehicle bay
http://i363.photobucket.com/albums/oo77/Hmr85/IDea_zps15b5e83a.png

With all these changes we would have a much better facility design that would finally promote the infantry style combat we are looking for.

[Figment]

They could create an entirely raised floor that vehicles can't get access to or have angles on, which would be the only entrypoints into the base. Could get there by ramps.

But yeah, can easily "U" the ground around it too.

[Hmr85]

I'm up for w/e they can do be it building up or into the ground because the current facility designs have got to go.

[Whiteagle]

I'm up for w/e they can do be it building up or into the ground because the current facility's have got to go.
The Facility buildings themselves don't need to go, but they need space carved out of them for spawn rooms (Amp Stations) and ground Infantry access (Bio Labs).
Then they can centralize most of the important things, like the SCU, SCU Shield Generator, and Control Point (Tech Plants).

[Mox]

I absolutly agree. The positions of the spawns as well as the the defensebility of the bases in general are the major game design issues of ps2. The spawn must be located in the inner core of each base. In that case spawn camping is no issue anymore since you have lost the whole base if you get camped and you shouldnt be spawing in a lost base.

Nevertheless at least the major bases need further defences. There are way too many entrances. The amp stations and also the bio domes feels like swiss cheese. Only tech plants dont have too many entrances. But i still think that also the tech plants need an overhaul.

[Whiteagle]

Nevertheless at least the major bases need further defences. There are way too many entrances. The amp stations and also the bio domes feels like swiss cheese. Only tech plants dont have too many entrances. But i still think that also the tech plants need an overhaul.
Well I think the Bio Labs are about right, we just need to move the teleporters lower down into the hollowed-out legs or dome-base to serve as a staging area for the troops fighting their way from the ground up.
The exits for this network of stairs and tunnels would then be where the teleporters currently are.

[Figment]

What would you lot say about tightening the courtyard a bit? Making it smaller, perhaps open up some lanes for vehicles, but also adding catwalks to the walls or between buildings?

[Hmr85]

What would you lot say about tightening the courtyard a bit? Making it smaller, perhaps open up some lanes for vehicles, but also adding catwalks to the walls or between buildings?

I would be perfectly fine with it. The current layout of the facility's are just way to big to be able to cover every section of it. I would love to see the CY's cleaned up and cleared out with the walls being brought in drastically with cat walks connecting to them. I feel Like D would stand a better chance then.

[Whiteagle]

What would you lot say about tightening the courtyard a bit? Making it smaller, perhaps open up some lanes for vehicles, but also adding catwalks to the walls or between buildings?
Which Facility are we talking here, Amp stations?

Because yeah, I could definitely live with smaller Amp Station Courtyards with Catwalks...

...Tech Labs I'd just like the Catwalks to avoid being run over by friendlies.

[Methonius]

I would be perfectly fine with it. The current layout of the facility's are just way to big to be able to cover every section of it. I would love to see the CY's cleaned up and cleared out with the walls being brought in drastically with cat walks connecting to them. I feel Like D would stand a better chance then.

Anything the devs can do to make defense more tempting for people is a plus in my book. Either by changing spawns to new locations or making xp go up for how long/how many kills you get between the time of the resecure. Honestly, they should implement both imo.

[Figment]

Was stated at SOE live that we do not currently have the ability to cut holes into terrain. We don't need to in order to have underground facilities, but we would need to create entirely new assets for that (which is neither cheap nor fast).

We fake tunnels in places like Split Peak Pass.

A heads up from Malorn.

[Wahooo]

I worry they don't want this anyway. All the little additions that are keeping us from deploying a defensive AMS in a protected and good location make me think they simply WANT there to be no defense.

I"m not 100% sold on truly underground spawns, well I am, but PS1 style stairwells? Would not work well. I would like to see area such as from the vehicle spawn through the SCU to that little back doorway. Protected, under the base, not the vertical up/down spamfest that a stairwell would be.

[Soothsayer]

Well then Everquest Next is ducked....


They'll figure it out eventually. PS2 is a tech test for the EQ:N engine. :p

[PeanutMF]

A heads up from Malorn.

I had a feeling that the game utilised height maps for the terrain, given the presence of meshes for showing overhangs and no actual tunnels that don't have some sort of mesh for the ground above it instead of terrain.

It would be cool if they could designate certain meshes (models, assets like structures) to displace the terrain, as Malorn says in the quote, which could reduce the work required for making underground areas, but the tunnel itself would still have to be entirely modelled instead of simply using the height map terrain generation I would assume they normally use.

[Beerbeer]

I wish Malorn would put more vehicle barriers in the existing bases, preventing vehicles from driving near the spawn location, critical objectives and pathways between the spawn locations and these objectives. Maybe create overhead awnings over the spawn doors and widen the doors to twice their size.

Vehicles have no business getting anywhere near spawn locations or have a direct LOS to the doors.

I think these would be the easiest solution before they completely revamp the bases (which should be done IMO).

[Nick]

/signed, the level design in PlanetSide 2 is atrocious. We need some underground areas to fight in, respawn, and hide from the Vehicle fest the game has turned into.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Was stated at SOE live that we do not currently have the ability to cut holes into terrain. We don't need to in order to have underground facilities, but we would need to create entirely new assets for that (which is neither cheap nor fast).

We fake tunnels in places like Split Peak Pass.
A heads up from Malorn.

I knew it! Seriously, that's really a huge flaw. That and the lack of liquids (water, lava, you name it). :(

[Rivenshield]

The current layout of the facility's are just way to big to be able to cover every section of it. I would love to see the CY's cleaned up and cleared out with the walls being brought in drastically with cat walks connecting to them. I feel Like D would stand a better chance then.

Quoted for truth. Part of defensible is *small.* Or at least not so XBAWKS HUEG that even a couple hundred people couldn't man it. If 2/3rds the bases in this game were half the size, I'd be happy.

A few mega-complexes are fine. But they're the rule, and they're not much fun to attack *or* defend. The most fun I've had in-game is when two armored forces meet, some attrition takes place.... and ex-drivers start showing up as infantry.

Also, let's please do something about the silly invulnerable spawn-harvest boxes set OUTSIDE. Jesus! How about connecting them via hallway to a neighboring building with a gen in it that controls the spawn shield, so we can have actual last stands....

[Whiteagle]

Quoted for truth. Part of defensible is *small.* Or at least not so XBAWKS HUEG that even a couple hundred people couldn't man it. If 2/3rds the bases in this game were half the size, I'd be happy.
Well I don't think a large number of bases are too big, more that some require too large of a man and Vehicle-power requirement to be defensible.

For instance, the Amp Station walls are actually MORE effective around those few Bio Labs despite probably being larger in my opinion, because the less clutter courtyards make it so you don't have to line the tops with Infantry just to screen for Light Assaults.

Meanwhile Amp Stations themselves are probably the best example of how backwards most bases have been designed; Attackers get PLENTY of cover to move up on critical objectives while Defenders have to rush OUT INTO THE OPEN to try and stop them.

I mean, I'm up for giving attackers a good chance of winning, but when one guy can easily give six guard the run around something is WRONG!

A few mega-complexes are fine. But they're the rule, and they're not much fun to attack *or* defend. The most fun I've had in-game is when two armored forces meet, some attrition takes place.... and ex-drivers start showing up as infantry.
Eh, this is more of a matter of opinion, as I'd personally find the successful capture or defense of a major complex AWESOME...

...Problem is Bio Labs are the only Major Facility with any sort of defensibility, and they're often overtaken through sheer numbers.

Also, let's please do something about the silly invulnerable spawn-harvest boxes set OUTSIDE. Jesus! How about connecting them via hallway to a neighboring building with a gen in it that controls the spawn shield, so we can have actual last stands....

...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?
Alamo Mushrooms for the WIN!!!

Personally I no longer mind the removely of SCU's from Outpost anymore since they've added indicators to show enemy activity on the map, but you are right about the "spawn-harvest boxes" bit...

Most of the improved base layouts on Amerish are absolutely destroyed by this, as Air Superiorty can be easily gained and there isn't any overhead cover protecting the spawn-shacks...

...Really, who those Red-Cross Prefabs would be a GOOD IDEA to use for Military Deployment Bunkers in an FPS with Aircraft?

[Tom Peters]

Bumping this really old thread as opposed to making a new one, as I just recently realized how important underground networks and corridors are to a game like this.

By having spawntubes underground, especially in small outposts, it would prevent so much of the annoying spawncamping, and make attacking and defending a lot more interesting.

All the bases in Planetside 1 had backdoors, underground corridors. In some of the bases in Planetside 2, it even looks like they had the idea of doing it, but they never got to it. Like here, at TI Alloys.

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/576736323330323932/16B676D2F300FD1B60A6AF777E93152F2E84BA65/

This looks like it could easily be a backdoor/underground entrance for this base.

By adding in these underground networks, (if they're made well, with good areas for defending, ample amounts of cover and diffferent ways to go underneath the bases), it would completely change the flow of infantry combat and allow for much more... in-depth assaults. Rather than just having to watch the sky and ground, now you have to keep some defense underground as well.

Plus, it creates a nice area for infantry combat that can't be SO RUDELY INTERRUPTED by some ESF.

[Falcon_br]

This week I just notice after a long defense on the stronghold...
That base got a very long tunnel inside the montain!
I lost some time exploring that tunnel, is really huge and kind of pointless, but for a second I thought that it would be connected to another base!
Also that entrance on TI alloys also exist in the arsenal on Amerish, really looks like it would be connected to something, but never happened, there are also lots of that underground connection on Indar, one of them near the stronghold, on the way to Tawrich, before the first base on the way.
I just hope it is nothing related to core combat!

[Stardouser]

Spawn camping isn't a problem, but poor base design facilitating it is. Does that sound contradictory? Not really...the game's design toward spawn camping should always be neutral, it should neither help nor hinder spawn camping.

Currently, base design in many situations helps spawn camping. I don't fight at large bases much so others can comment on that, but at small bases, it's pretty laughable how the game supports it sometimes. And while zergs should always win against skeleton defenses, it's like the game is trying to support the zerg's right to win without taking losses. It's way too easy for 10 tanks and a few ESFs to blanket every square inch of small and medium base spawn rooms. Take those medium outpost bases that are like 50 meters long and have the "armored" roof on top. While that's better than what we had before, it's still very much possible for tanks to blanket every square inch of them with splash damage while 1 guy caps.

However, shielding the roof, or making the building even MORE protected and allowing the defenders inside to be even more able to fire out without risk is NOT the answer. More spawn points around the base area is. New base designs, such as entire outposts built into a mountainside, which means only infantry can go in, are another.

But with all that said, on the other hand game design should not prevent spawn camping, either. Some people are focusing on that the defenders should never have to give up. Yes, they should, but not that they concede the base, but that they stop blindly respawning at the besieged base and mount a counterattack from the nearest base and come up from behind the attackers with tanks and a brand new sunderer. This is all possible to do right now but people want to just respawn-spam-defend.

What did we want an MMOFPS for, an MMOFPS that enables such strategic responses, if we just want to take the Battlefield approach and give defenders artificial assistance?

[psijaka]

Spawn camping isn't a problem, but poor base design facilitating it is. Does that sound contradictory? Not really...the game's design toward spawn camping should always be neutral, it should neither help nor hinder spawn camping.

Currently, base design in many situations helps spawn camping. I don't fight at large bases much so others can comment on that, but at small bases, it's pretty laughable how the game supports it sometimes. And while zergs should always win against skeleton defenses, it's like the game is trying to support the zerg's right to win without taking losses. It's way too easy for 10 tanks and a few ESFs to blanket every square inch of small and medium base spawn rooms. Take those medium outpost bases that are like 50 meters long and have the "armored" roof on top. While that's better than what we had before, it's still very much possible for tanks to blanket every square inch of them with splash damage while 1 guy caps.

However, shielding the roof, or making the building even MORE protected and allowing the defenders inside to be even more able to fire out without risk is NOT the answer. More spawn points around the base area is. New base designs, such as entire outposts built into a mountainside, which means only infantry can go in, are another.

But with all that said, on the other hand game design should not prevent spawn camping, either. Some people are focusing on that the defenders should never have to give up. Yes, they should, but not that they concede the base, but that they stop blindly respawning at the besieged base and mount a counterattack from the nearest base and come up from behind the attackers with tanks and a brand new sunderer. This is all possible to do right now but people want to just respawn-spam-defend.

What did we want an MMOFPS for, an MMOFPS that enables such strategic responses, if we just want to take the Battlefield approach and give defenders artificial assistance?

Agree with this. It's not so much that spawn camping takes place that is the problem, but the remoteness of many spawn rooms from the control points, and the openness of the spawn and the control points.

This means that the defenders have to cross open ground to defend the control point, and they will probably be subjected to AoE spam once they get there.

So - move the control points indoors and closer to the spawn room.

TI Alloys is a pretty good example of how it should be done; even if the tanks arrive it is still possible for the defenders to get to "A" as it is only a short dash between the spawn room and the building housing "A". Had some epic battles there, my favourite small outpost.

I do like the concept of underground spawns as well though, would open up some interesting possibilities.

[psijaka]

This week I just notice after a long defense on the stronghold...
That base got a very long tunnel inside the montain!
I lost some time exploring that tunnel, is really huge and kind of pointless, but for a second I thought that it would be connected to another base!
Also that entrance on TI alloys also exist in the arsenal on Amerish, really looks like it would be connected to something, but never happened, there are also lots of that underground connection on Indar, one of them near the stronghold, on the way to Tawrich, before the first base on the way.
I just hope it is nothing related to core combat!

I'm intrigued by the Stronghold tunnel; have to take a look.

And I would like to see these entrances actually connected to something.

[WSNeo]

The only problem is that we have players stupid enough to feed the campers when they should realize they have lost the battle.

This is the prime example of the type of mindset that should not be had in this (or any) game. Just because you are pushed back to your spawn does not mean that the enemy has won, at times you have to outthink the enemy to get out of the base. This is not League Of Legends or DOTA where you "feed" the enemy as you say. This is a problem many people in the LoL community has...if they have to fight an uphill battle to get out of their base or defend their nexus they say "fuck it, let's just surrender so we can move on to our next game" rather than fight and possibly make a comeback.

[Phantomdestiny]

they already said that hossin will have more tunnels and that bases will be made more unique compared to the other 3 continents. Meaning that we will get more strongold like basses. Btw talking about core combat they confirmed that searhus will have caves ;) so not sure if should be very happy or scared , ziplines nooooooooooo

[Tom Peters]

they already said that hossin will have more tunnels and that bases will be made more unique compared to the other 3 continents. Meaning that we will get more strongold like basses. Btw talking about core combat they confirmed that searhus will have caves ;) so not sure if should be very happy or scared , ziplines nooooooooooo

Well they need to get on it, because underground corridor fighting was a huge part of Planetside 1. The pushing and defending in those hallways felt a lot more exciting.

[Roderick]

True base taking is a key component of PS 1 that does not exist in PS 2.

Players would have to leave their vehicles behind to actually go into a base to fight the enemy, attempt to blow spawn tubes/generator and hack the CC and hold it from Outfits attempting to take back the CC. There were no vehicles camping the spawn tubes to make it an all out hell for the underdog players attempting to make a comeback.

While I love the air battles and dogfights in PlanetSide 2, the ground game and base taking design is very flawed. Designers of PlanetSide 2 did not do their homework very well or learn anything of what made PlanetSide 1 a long lasting game.

[patricioz]

They need to prevent vehicles entering the base until the base is flipped, also defenders vehicle spawn pads should be outside the walls, the need to segregate infantry base combat, from vehicle (with infantry support) combat, tank shields should only come down when the base is taken. that's a minor change that should alleviate spawn camping.
But I suspect that this apparent "poor judgement" in base design is part of a business model from SOE, if tanks/air wouldn't be such a PIA for the defenders, then who would purchase all those rocket launchers??? and SOE really needs to sell them...

[Phantomdestiny]

the basses on test server (indar) are taking some steps in the right direction

[Galron]

I wouldn't mind an indoor, infantry only base with a vastly lower number of chokepoints. I want to feel you can push back without vastly superior numbers.

[AThreatToYou]

I am an advocate of spawns being located underground not to fight spawn camping, but just to centralize bases and make them more fun to defend. Although, this practically requires destructible spawn tubes (a must anyway).

The underground environments would be a bit complicated, but it shouldn't be hard to make them fun and interesting. At least not these bland buildings we have now. Model it after UT or something.

[Shogun]

said it before. i would like to see one ps1 style base (maybe directly imported from ps next) plopped on the testserver. i am sure this is possible. the devs plopped a bfr on the map inside a building with no doors just for fun, so it is possible to import stuff.

then call out an alert to make everyone on the testserver come for this base and collect data and feedback on this fight.

maybe even reintroduce the old capture mechanic for a second playtest and check back on player reactions.

would be a relatively cheap way to check, if bases should go back or forth in design.

the base doesn´t need to look as polished as the ps2 bases do, it´s all about the layout and playstyle. just remind the testers what it´s about and ignore whining about the optics.