FNO 26 Recap

[NewSith]

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/recap-friday-night-ops-episode-26.112123/


Spawning inside vehicles a-la Battlefield.
A new "invisible" beacon without areal limitations.
"Sealing spawnrooms a little bit better".
Spawnrooms are not gonna be moved inside superstructure.
No plans to change tunnels.
Battleship idea is "backed off from"
Islands are gonna be most likely used for ESports
The designs were always built with the addition of Artillery in the future in mind
Searhus will have lots of caves
The capture points in future designs will be getting into more enclosed positions
Some facilities on Indar will be redesigned or removed.
"New spanrooms will be easier to defend, so the defender can leave spawnrooms more safely"
Facilities will get designs unique for the Light Assault ability, like "holes in roofs"
Facilities around warpgates will be facing the direction opposite to the warpgate in the future
Center of the map is always made to be "the best place to fight at" and is always a "signature place"
Navage's wanted continent idea is "asteroid field were you can hop from rock to rock". Searhus has some of that in its core.
New continents are gonna be more infantry friendly.


My impressions of the guy are negative, I don't feel like he is capable of doing the "defense" thing right.

[Hmr85]

I am extremely disappointed in a lot of these changes I am seeing here. I look through this entire list you have above and I do not see one thing that makes me go " yeah I am looking forward to that". Instead all I see is more holes in defense along with spawning for casual players.

I am slightly annoyed to hear that any future islands are going to be used for E-sports. Still baffled on their reasoning for not shoring up bases better for defense and moving the spawn down under the primary facility. I really just do not know what to think anymore about some of SOE's game design choices.

We have been hearing since tech test with people screaming for better designed facility's that are actually defensible. It just seems like it keeps going the opposite direction.

[Nathaniak]

•Spawnrooms are not gonna be moved inside superstructure.
•No plans to change tunnels.

Really? Tunnels add very little to the game, currently. They're just camped, so they add nothing to the actual fighting. Why don't they change the entrances to a shielded door, replace the SCU with a gen for the shield and the pain field, then move the SCU and control point inside the tunnels? Even better, remove the SCU, and allow the attackers to access the spawn room via the tunnels only, and make them destroy the spawn tubes to stop the attackers spawning? So much better.

[ringring]

Good bad and very bad.

Holes in roofs for LA's (with insta-gib shotguns)? What if you don't play LA, will you simply be fodder in indefensible rooms?

Actually the only good things are more enclosed spawns and capture points.

Hopping from rocks in caves in Searhus. Does that means LA is necessary? And again does it all negate structure and choke points?

[NewSith]

Actually the only good things are more enclosed spawns and capture points.

This isn't also good exactly. With spawnrooms not having any direct access to capture points, with equal numbers it's all about who gets to them first.

Hopping from rocks in caves in Searhus. Does that means LA is necessary? And again does it all negate structure and choke points?

I think this actually means more jumppads, hell knows...

[OctavianAXFive]

Well he didn't quite answer my questions as thoroughly as I hoped but he did somewhat verify my theory on why they put the spawn rooms outside the base.

Question: "Why are the spawn rooms in major bases located outside the main facility?"

We wanted the main facility to be where all the great combat is happening. If one team is spawning right there, it's not really much of a fight. That's too huge of an advantage. So we had to move the spawn rooms away so even the defenders, the owners of the base, have a little bit of travel time to get back into the fight, that's your penalty for dieing. You respawn, you run a few feet, then you're back in. Same with the attackers. They've usually got a little farther to run from their sunderer or from a forward spawn location.

Corey Navage
FNO Episode 26. 1:54:00
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/recap-friday-night-ops-episode-26.112123/

He feels it's too much of an advantage to defenders spawning inside the base, even though that's exactly what happens with Biolabs. Though I suppose depending on where you sit, those are too defensible.

My immediate response to his answer, which I surmised was the case when I made my longer post about base defense (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=53957), is that the fight happens around the spawn room, not inside the base.

The fighting happens inside the base only when a defending force has posted up inside with large numbers long before the attackers begin their assault. It's also why the AMS in the middle of Tech Plants and AMP stations is so crucial. Once those die, the base is more or less lost unless the defenders can spawn another before being overrun.

Otherwise, the proper procedure for taking a base is to deny spawn room reinforcements by camping it. The other problem of defenders inside the base will take care of itself as they die off bit by bit.

Also, when a defender dies, expecting them to run either on their own or with 2-3 other people back through enemy lines is just head scratching.

Luperza had a follow up question:

And how do the tunnels play in all of that?

Navage

We added the tunnels in to give the defenders more routes out of their spawn room. It's not an instant travel, you've still got that travel time involved, but it brings you to more interesting places.

He goes on to say that tunnels are doing what they are intending them to do.

Well I can't refute that the tunnels have been useful but in the end they are just another location to camp and don't really help give the defenders an edge.

Again, it's not that I find camping inherently bad. But it's the expected behavior and the right tactical choice given the situation attackers are faced with when assaulting a base.

I should have put down a third question asking about control points seeing as how those are what I have a particular gripe with. I just wasn't sure how to phrase it on Twitter since I only had so many characters.

As a side note: It's obvious that all major facilities are "environmentally agnostic" to paraphrase Navage, but it's disappointing that they don't plan on branching out and making them more unique.

[bpostal]

...
He feels it's too much of an advantage to defenders spawning inside the base,...
I'm just going to sit here and mutter 'motherfucker' for a bit whilst waiting for Clegg to come back. That's the kind of attitude that turns this game into a NASCAR style 'everyone flank left and assault' you just end up with everyone going in circles.

...
Well I can't refute that the tunnels have been useful but in the end they are just another location to camp and don't really help give the defenders an edge.

Again, it's not that I find camping inherently bad. But it's the expected behavior and the right tactical choice given the situation attackers are faced with when assaulting a base.

Agreed, tunnels are kinda useful but they would be better if you could see just what the hell you're jumping into. Also, it may just be me showing my age but spawn camping has always been viewed as inherently bad, the sign of a childish and poor gamer.

All in all I don't see much here that is overly encouraging.

[OctavianAXFive]

Well I suppose I should qualify what I mean by "inherently bad."

Spawn camping is not fun either for the camper or the campee.

What I mean to say is that it's not an inherently bad tactic. If it works it works. In this case it's the path of least resistance to securing a base so I expect people to do it. If it's in the game and is a valid tactic to get what you want, then I endorse it.

It would be foolish not to...

[Sturmhardt]

Wait a while they said,
It will be less like battlefield and cod they said...

.sent via phone.

[ringring]

Well he didn't quite answer my questions as thoroughly as I hoped but he did somewhat verify my theory on why they put the spawn rooms outside the base.

Question: "Why are the spawn rooms in major bases located outside the main facility?"



Corey Navage
FNO Episode 26. 1:54:00
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/recap-friday-night-ops-episode-26.112123/

He feels it's too much of an advantage to defenders spawning inside the base, even though that's exactly what happens with Biolabs. Though I suppose depending on where you sit, those are too defensible.

My immediate response to his answer, which I surmised was the case when I made my longer post about base defense (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=53957), is that the fight happens around the spawn room, not inside the base.

The fighting happens inside the base only when a defending force has posted up inside with large numbers long before the attackers begin their assault. It's also why the AMS in the middle of Tech Plants and AMP stations is so crucial. Once those die, the base is more or less lost unless the defenders can spawn another before being overrun.

Otherwise, the proper procedure for taking a base is to deny spawn room reinforcements by camping it. The other problem of defenders inside the base will take care of itself as they die off bit by bit.

Also, when a defender dies, expecting them to run either on their own or with 2-3 other people back through enemy lines is just head scratching.

.

Where I am the was a load 'clunk'. That was the sound of my jaw dropping and hitting the desk.

[Carbon Copied]

Got to go with the general consensus here and say "far from hopeful".

The one thing that's always bugged me about the base design from start as a whole is they just don't make any sense. Now I know striking that balance between playability and "reality" is key but simple things like base defenses as mentioned. It's like they're trying to solve an offense/defense situation structurally rather than game mechanic and structurally e.g enclosed defended bases that are hard to get into but rewarding when you break that hack point dead lock and keep that foothold to push in etc.
They're not bases they're just little more than Unreal Tournament - King of the Hill - team death match arenas.

Also some of the comments really piss me off so I'll pick a few out that jumped out more:

Facilities will get designs unique for the Light Assault ability, like "holes in roofs"

Ok so as a medic can I have instant troop death traps in this design "model" so I can rez people and feel included too? A base should bring out class qualities but again; we're back to the UT KOTH/TDM mode.

Center of the map is always made to be "the best place to fight at" and is always a "signature place"

Ok a signature place makes sense and is great - but the best place to fight at? Sorry what? That kind of mentality you should just save everyone the hassle and demolish the out hex bases and make an outstanding centre piece.

The designs were always built with the addition of Artillery in the future in mind

To be read as "we wanted the designs to limit recovery/sustainability from such a sequence of events"?

Overall: Not hopeful. Not impressed.

[ringring]

Thre's 1 more thing to add to the list. The return of the thumper, this time tied to a max.
(Not sure whether this is good or bad tbh. I'm not anti thumper but in this low ttk game, I don't know. I guess they'll try to balance it as best they can.)

[Whiteagle]

Agreed, tunnels are kinda useful but they would be better if you could see just what the hell you're jumping into.
Well they are getting SLIGHTLY better with this, I noticed the other day that Towers now have a sign indicating which exit leads to the stairs, so it stands to reason they'll get to putting something like this in the Tunnels eventually.

Also, it may just be me showing my age but spawn camping has always been viewed as inherently bad, the sign of a childish and poor gamer.
Perhaps...
My first MMO Shooter was the Second Life Military Combat scene, where for the longest time Spawn Camping was pretty much one of the few real "Win" condition due to how "Re-spawning" worked in that Game.

It was only when a few community heads started thinking more like game designers and less like egotistical, self-centered assholes that we started getting base designs with built-in objectives.

What I mean to say is that it's not an inherently bad tactic. If it works it works. In this case it's the path of least resistance to securing a base so I expect people to do it. If it's in the game and is a valid tactic to get what you want, then I endorse it.

It would be foolish not to...
Indeed, it's basically a logical extension of suppression tactics; If you know the enemy has to come through a specific passage to get to you, have a few people watch it so they can take them out before then can do any damage.



Really though, this resistance to moving the Spawn Rooms inside the superstructure of Major Facilities just belays a lack of real Tactical or Strategic thinking when it comes to base designs...

To re-use a modified diagram of Octavian's:
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/Whiteagle/Figure3_zpsdad77e1c.png

THIS is how bases in this game should be designed.

The most hardened Defenses should be focused around the Spawn Room and Spawn Controls, BUT the point or points that determine control of the Base should be located OUTSIDE the protection of that inner most keep!

Right now it's either the practically opposite, like with Tech Plants and Amp Station having a Spawn that's barely within the main buildings protection while the Control Point sits nestled within their cores, or both are within equal levels of the Defenses, like the dome of the Bio Labs.

[OctavianAXFive]

And THIS is how I think they should be designed.

I think Whiteagle and I will have to agree to disagree on the whole final objective thing.

To reiterate:

This base has a hackable console in the spawn room, not control points. The spawn room is only penetrated after the SCU, located in the triangle "line of defense," is destroyed.

I don't think control points are necessary because the SCU is the actual objective inside a base.

http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o693/OctavianAX5/Figure3_zpsdfdda193.png

If you're interested in how or why we arrived here, there's a whole thread on it.

Here is a link to a nice tl;dr by ChipMHazard:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=53957&page=3

[Whiteagle]

I don't think control points are necessary because the SCU is the actual objective inside a base.
And this is where are disagreement lies...

I see the SCU as a Means-to-an-End where as you see the SCU as the End Objective...

Probably never going to sway you on this, but the difference is rather significant, with my experience telling me that your method will result in battles whose outcome rapidly fluctuates depending on who has (a mostly numerical) advantage.

That's why I'm such a strong advocate of keeping Control Points, without NTU's they become a siege mechanic that can break an otherwise deadlocked battle between two equal forces in favor of who plays more tactically.

[Emperor]

Reading those bullet points was like experiencing a slow-motion car crash: you can't stop, and it just keeps getting worse. Vehicular spawning. Invisible beacons. Internal spawns are out. No battleships. More esports focus. Holes in rooftops. Designing maps to intentionally have the center be an activity blackhole.

Clegg needs to fly a galaxy into this guy.

[Whiteagle]

What do they mean by "No Battleships?"

Are they specifically ruling-out Naval Combat as an aspect of the Game, or what?

[Emperor]

I doubt they'd nix naval combat entirely, but the massive carriers seem to be off the table.

[Whiteagle]

I doubt they'd nix naval combat entirely, but the massive carriers seem to be off the table.
Well that's the thing, what counts as a "Massive Carrier?"

Are they talking about those Airships from the Concept Art, or floating mobile Sea-bases?


...Do they realise that Warships aren't all called Battleships, right?

[bpostal]

...
My first MMO Shooter was the Second Life Military Combat scene, where for the longest time Spawn Camping was pretty much one of the few real "Win" condition due to how "Re-spawning" worked in that Game.

It was only when a few community heads started thinking more like game designers and less like egotistical, self-centered assholes that we started getting base designs with built-in objectives.


Indeed, it's basically a logical extension of suppression tactics; ...

Exactly, it arrives from either a lack of a 'game' or rather actual gameplay mechanics or from players insistence on turning a tactical/strategic focused game and turning it into a TDM.
Allow the players to get set up first before you push their shit in.
Concentric areas that allow players to spawn, then a staging area to push out towards the objective rather than "spawn in a shack where large caliber explosive rounds are stopped only by Dev Magic so good luck getting 10ft out the door lololo"
Put the spawn room inside a building, put that building inside another building (or add a tunnel) and have the players move in a logical and consistent manner. That way players can spawn, regroup and push in a meaningful manner before they get smoked.
I can't think of a proper example in the current game; where you spawn, rush into a neighboring building, clear that building and progress. It may currently exist but my diseased riddled brain can't think of it.

[ringring]

Maybe he should go look at the Tech Plant in PS1.

Control point and spawns are inside the main building and the spawns are quite a distance from the control point, almost equidistant from where AMSES could be deployed - and yet there were really good and intense infantry battles.

It can be done!

[NewSith]

Maybe he should go look at the Tech Plant in PS1.

Control point and spawns are inside the main building and the spawns are quite a distance from the control point, almost equidistant from where AMSES could be deployed - and yet there were really good and intense infantry battles.

It can be done!

I'll answer that one, it's easy.

No PlanetSide 1 base (except for cave buildings) was architected in a way that attackers could arrange their spawnpoint to be closer to a CC, than defenders'.
On rare occasions when they did manage that (via Router Pads) the battle was usually over in a matter of minutes.


PS: AFAIK, there was that time when you could place vehicles on top of buildings and walls in PlanetSide, but it was overriden rather quickly by 25 seconds deconstruction rule, just to prevent the very issue I mentioned above.

[Whiteagle]

Concentric areas that allow players to spawn, then a staging area to push out towards the objective rather than "spawn in a shack where large caliber explosive rounds are stopped only by Dev Magic so good luck getting 10ft out the door lololo"
Put the spawn room inside a building, put that building inside another building (or add a tunnel) and have the players move in a logical and consistent manner. That way players can spawn, regroup and push in a meaningful manner before they get smoked.
That's the most upsetting thing about this, all of the Superstructure buildings could be easily redesigned to accommodate just that!

For instance, Tech Plant's could have the Spawn Room moved to one end of the ceiling of the interior section, the Spawn Control Unit placed where the Control Point is currently, and have Multiple Control Points scattered on the ground floor with maybe one on the opposite end of the upper one.

Amp Stations are even easier; Just put the Spawn Room underneath the SCU!

I can't think of a proper example in the current game; where you spawn, rush into a neighboring building, clear that building and progress. It may currently exist but my diseased riddled brain can't think of it.
Eh, the best example I can think of are Bio Labs, if simply because the lack of Vehicles allows for such movement.

Unfortunately Bio Labs suffer from "Meat Grinder syndrome" due to a Control Point Placement that's barely any harder to re-secure over the SCU and SCU Shield Generator...

They ironically would need the biggest overhauls to really work in the same way as my proposed changes to the other two, redoing almost everything below the dome so that it would have a basement section and the legs would be hollowed out to serve as stairwells.

Integrating the Spawn Room into the upper section of the Central Dome Column would also help space it away from the Control Points while keeping it within easy access of the SCU.

No PlanetSide 1 base (except for cave buildings) was architected in a way that attackers could arrange their spawnpoint to be closer to a CC, than defenders'.
Which wouldn't be so bad... if the Spawn Rooms weren't so GOD DAMN FAR AWAY FROM THE POINTS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

[ringring]

I'll answer that one, it's easy.

No PlanetSide 1 base (except for cave buildings) was architected in a way that attackers could arrange their spawnpoint to be closer to a CC, than defenders'.
On rare occasions when they did manage that (via Router Pads) the battle was usually over in a matter of minutes.


PS: AFAIK, there was that time when you could place vehicles on top of buildings and walls in PlanetSide, but it was overriden rather quickly by 25 seconds deconstruction rule, just to prevent the very issue I mentioned above.

Um really?

Amp Station:
Defender: Out the spawn, turn right, up the corridor ramp, turn left, turn left again into the main room, go around and towards the staircase, up and through the double doors outside, turn left or right up the stairs and around and into the CC room, cross that room to the CC itself.

Attacker:
AMS deployed against the wall adjacent to the staircase to the wall. Up the staircase and along a bit, turn right and along a suspended walkway, turn left or right up the stairs, turn and enter the CC room, cross the room to the CC itself.

I don't have a tape measure but in my mind's eye but as with the Tech plant the difference in distance isn't much.

In any case the defender still had an advantage because he could wait on the attackers coming to him.

For Bio Labs, Interlinks and Dropships, yes. The spawns were much closer to the CC's.

[NewSith]

Amp Station:
Defender: Out the spawn, turn right, up the corridor ramp, turn left, turn left again into the main room, go around and towards the staircase, up and through the double doors outside, turn left or right up the stairs and around and into the CC room, cross that room to the CC itself.

That is why AMP stations were usually so easy to take. But mostly because the defender had to go out of the superstructure to get to AMP CC, same way he had to do with BioLab genroom.

I don't have a tape measure but in my mind's eye but as with the Tech plant the difference in distance isn't much.

The closest way was via Main Room.

The second closest way would be to park under the SCU, take the wallhub to the side of Maindoor, go up, turn right, forward, up the small stairs, into the Airroom, and into the stairway.

Defender: left upon spawning forward, left, up the stairway, done.

[OctavianAXFive]

And this is where are disagreement lies...

I see the SCU as a Means-to-an-End where as you see the SCU as the End Objective...

Probably never going to sway you on this, but the difference is rather significant, with my experience telling me that your method will result in battles whose outcome rapidly fluctuates depending on who has (a mostly numerical) advantage.

That's why I'm such a strong advocate of keeping Control Points, without NTU's they become a siege mechanic that can break an otherwise deadlocked battle between two equal forces in favor of who plays more tactically.

In the end I just don't see how your way will play out all that differently from what we currently have.

With what you're saying:
The smaller force is at a big disadvantage. They can't utilize their last line of defense because they will have to push out to that control point. In a numerically imbalanced situation, you're making the smaller force of defenders worry about two objectives (SCU and CP) instead of one (the SCU). And one of the key objectives is in a territory they already couldn't defend.

Each layer is supposed to have less objectives for the defenders to worry about. But the triangle layer has effectively two objectives, one of which isn't even in that layer.

If I'm an attacking outfit leader, my goal will be that SCU. It will always be that SCU. If I get the SCU I win. In your method or in mine. The defenders are crushed and can't respawn, my job of securing the base is easier and more assured.

It's not like I've made this up. It's exactly how Battlefield Rush works.

Except since the game ends after the last set of SCUs (MCOMs) are destroyed, there isn't a need to think about a logical next step. That next step in Planetside would be for the attackers to start the base flip. They do so by killing the defenders in their inner most keep and hacking a computer.

Try not to shoot me for bringing up another shooter.

I think part of your concern comes from not wanting the defenders to default to defending the triangle as it would clearly be the easiest place to defend.

What if I added in the idea that the respawn timer gets higher every time an external shield generator goes down? It would give the defenders some sort of added incentive to hold the outer layers, while making the attackers feel like they are making headway.

Some XP incentives could be thrown in there as well.

[bpostal]

Watching that segment again I think I've just realized what my main bitch is about the spawn room location. They've put the spawn room in the courtyard.
I realize that it's been in the CY this entire time but I've never actually...realized. Why? Why is it in the CY?

[HelpLuperza]

Facilities will get designs unique for the Light Assault ability, like "holes in roofs"
Yeah this bothers me for some reason. I am worried that this will make bases weaker to the Zerg because it will allow more greater spawn camping. This is because changes to the terrian affect how and where we can use our weapons.

Speaking of classes and weapons, also I am hoping that FNO will talk about the changes weapons and maxes more For example, one thing they could talk about is TR Chaingun and the new Max abilities, and what they are going to prevent the TR Max and new weapons from emphasizing the traditional logical Zerging TR tatics. I have very mixed feelings about these changes, because it feels lately that every change to the TR weapons promotes a Zerg mentality.

For example, I wanted them to talk about their views on these changes because I feel, for example, our ammo advantage is being defined lately in new ways as a Zerg advantage.

It just gets kind of boring when almost ammo advantage weapon the TR has to take 100 burst shots to kill a enemy. Because it takes 100 shots, it thus causes players with similar weapons to group up and Zerg rush more often. Here's a logic map using the faction comparison chart
http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab135/AirFell/Planetside2FactionDifferences.jpg

In other words, the argument goes that it feels like all TR's new weapons follow this logical map:
If TR have more ammo or an ammo specific weapon ==> less damage per single shot
If TR have more ammo or an ammo specific weapon ==> more overall damage if every shot hits but less substained accuracy over time.
If TR have Substained accuracy and medium accuracy ==> shots have to be burst
If TR can deploy for more damage or have more overall damage ==> have less ability to dodge and have to cover for each other more. <-- (this is a key logical step, i can explain it more detail if need be)
If TR shot have to be burst and less damage per single shot ==> team mates have to monotask and work together to focus on one target
If team mates have to monotask and work together to focus on one target ==> you have a firing squad
If you have a firing squad and you have to cover for each other more ==> you need alot of people and hence benifity exponentionally from large groups of people aka Zerg Rush Tatics.

So

ammo specific weapons and deploy modes ==> exponentional benefit from Zerg Rush Tatics.

I don't feel like this logic is correct for the TR or what Devs intended as a faction difference as the TR are supposed to just be about teamwork not Zerging. However, this logic is what i feel is very popular from people I see on Connery. I other words the Zerging TR weapons argument is flawed based on the sole fact that TR relies on more teamwork than the other two factions. I don't think SOE devs would intentionally make on faction the Zergling faction. So, I like to understand better what the developers are thinking as they introduce new weapons to the TR. Looking at this example issue from a broader metagame perspective, I think that when they do these map changes we have to take into considerations the changes to the weapons they are making at the same time.

Plus the changes to the TR MiniChain Gun and TR Max are pretty cool, but they would be even cooler if emphasized lone max-engineer tactics more. :)

P.S. Contrary my main character is actually a TR not a Vanu. I am saying this thus in the name of ""true balance"" (actually its called perfect imbalance by game developers) in game itself and wanting the game to be fun for other players of all skill levels, not just large outfits.

[Carbon Copied]

Regardless of whose idea is better/more logical is irrelevant; it doesn't change the fact of the current setup seemingly doesn't feel "right" to many (based on the thoughts its sparked in here and also past threads / discussions); nor does it change the fallout from the person that has the directive to making these changes (at a sub departmental level). Instead seemingly continue to desire a deathmatch arena trend.

My take on bases and their design is there should be able to take on characteristics:


Speed bumps - out posts that aren't geared towards defence as such but have potential to cause momentum disruption if used correctly.

Road blocks - geared to grind an advance to a staggered halt and attempt to turn them round; organized factions could create problems and buy time for the next line of defence.

Moats - potential nightmares where your 1-2 hour style battles play out, involving persistence and everyone pulling together to take it for the faction... on both offensive and defensive sides.


Then eventually there will be the Last Stand in the form of the warp gates.

Right now they're all seemingly just speed bumps and below. I'm not going to go into the what goes where because there's plenty of ideas out there.

Each base doesn't have to be "a moat" and take forever nor does each moat need to rely on the same "this is how we capture all tech labs" style thinking - why couldn't Tawrich require a different strategy and be unique to Mao instead of the same cookie cutter? It's no different to game bosses who require different tactics because they're not the same encounter - would you enjoy killing each unique level boss in exactly the same manner; no its fucking repetitive and boring.

I'll close off a post that has started to go on but only to say I think that FNO peek has highlighted that the design of the game is on a potential crossroads (and not a for the first time) of not living up to what it should be or being something fantastic.

[Whiteagle]

In the end I just don't see how your way will play out all that differently from what we currently have.

With what you're saying:
The smaller force is at a big disadvantage. They can't utilize their last line of defense because they will have to push out to that control point. In a numerically imbalanced situation, you're making the smaller force of defenders worry about two objectives (SCU and CP) instead of one (the SCU). And one of the key objectives is in a territory they already couldn't defend.

Each layer is supposed to have less objectives for the defenders to worry about. But the triangle layer has effectively two objectives, one of which isn't even in that layer.

If I'm an attacking outfit leader, my goal will be that SCU. It will always be that SCU. If I get the SCU I win. In your method or in mine. The defenders are crushed and can't respawn, my job of securing the base is easier and more assured.

It's not like I've made this up. It's exactly how Battlefield Rush works.

Except since the game ends after the last set of SCUs (MCOMs) are destroyed, there isn't a need to think about a logical next step. That next step in Planetside would be for the attackers to start the base flip. They do so by killing the defenders in their inner most keep and hacking a computer.

The big difference is between Tactical and Strategic playing mindsets.

Both advocate destroying the enemies spawning capability as soon as possible on an Offense, but in a Strategic Defense being able to tie up enemy forces as long as possible is a needed asset.
Your methodology is based on seeing each base as single instances, instead of one point on a continuous rolling front.
Sure, the base may be lost at the point you are pushed back to the SCU/Spawn area, but what's stopping a large force from just steam rolling across the map if they just have to flip switches in Spawn Rooms to win?
What's the point in defending if you know you'll only succeed with the Zerg backing you up?

I think part of your concern comes from not wanting the defenders to default to defending the triangle as it would clearly be the easiest place to defend.
Well they are going to do that anyways...
But the point of putting the Control Point outside of the "Keep" the triangle represents however is to prevent Defenders from "turtling;" pretty much just sitting on the one point they need to control without moving outwards.
This makes things extreamly hard for Attackers if they don't have a HUGE advantage, resulting in fights that are almost always one-sided battle.

Watching that segment again I think I've just realized what my main bitch is about the spawn room location. They've put the spawn room in the courtyard.
I realize that it's been in the CY this entire time but I've never actually...realized. Why? Why is it in the CY?
Why indeed man, why indeed...

They put the Control Points all in the most hardened positions expecting the fighting to gradually progress there...
...Then put the Defenders Spawns on the other fucking side of the base so that the Attackers will have a chance to get there...

...IGNORING THE FACT THAT KEEPING THE DEFENDERS AWAY FROM THE POINT IS THE WIN CONDITION AND IT IS EASIEST TO DO SO WHEN YOU INTERPOSE YOURSELF BETWEEN THEIR SPAWN AND THE OBJECTIVE!

...How can they fail so bad at logic?

My take on bases and their design is there should be able to take on characteristics:


Speed bumps - out posts that aren't geared towards defence as such but have potential to cause momentum disruption if used correctly.

Road blocks - geared to grind an advance to a staggered halt and attempt to turn them round; organized factions could create problems and buy time for the next line of defence.

Moats - potential nightmares where your 1-2 hour style battles play out, involving persistence and everyone pulling together to take it for the faction... on both offensive and defensive sides.


Then eventually there will be the Last Stand in the form of the warp gates.

Right now they're all seemingly just speed bumps and below. I'm not going to go into the what goes where because there's plenty of ideas out there.
Well to be fair there are a few select Road Blocks out there, namely the two outermost Indar ridge-line outpost, but I see your point.

Really though, shouldn't Major Facilities be the Moats?

Each base doesn't have to be "a moat" and take forever nor does each moat need to rely on the same "this is how we capture all tech labs" style thinking - why couldn't Tawrich require a different strategy and be unique to Mao instead of the same cookie cutter? It's no different to game bosses who require different tactics because they're not the same encounter - would you enjoy killing each unique level boss in exactly the same manner; no its fucking repetitive and boring.
Very true, but that requires customizing each Major Facility's layout...

Which if the cookie-cutter bases haven't shown you, is a bit more effort then SOE originally intended...

[OctavianAXFive]

You do know that it's not an instant base flip when the attackers hit the switch in the spawn room? It begins a timer for the defending faction to send a force for resecure or the base changes hands.

How much more time could you possibly want them to buy? By my estimation my plan allows defenders to hold out indefinitely if the attackers can't get to that SCU.

The problem that remains is some sort of siege mechanic that prevents the turtle. In this aspect, I definitely see the flaw in my original outline.

So I will make this amendment, which I believe will bridge the gap between my design and yours.

Once the last external shield generator goes down, a timer starts to countdown until the SCU loses power. If the defenders can push out and get a generator back online, that timer starts to count up again, counting up faster the more generators they manage to get online.

If the attackers manage to breach the SCU area and begin a manual overload, the usual "oh shit the SCU is overloading" mechanic except now the timer winds down very quickly. If there isn't a lot of time left to begin with, the SCU will be destroyed very quickly, possibly quicker than when it overloads now. If there's a lot of time left, the defenders might get a little longer to stop the manual overload.

Once the SCU goes down, the spawn room shields go down and the defenders can no longer spawn.

They can hold out in the spawn room for as long as possible until they are cleared and the switch to start the base flip timer begins.

I think this will cover both of our concerns from turtling to small squad defensibility.

What do you think?

[Whiteagle]

What do you think?
Good, but it will probably require large overhauls to both Major Facilities and minor Outpost...

Like I said to Carbon Copied, Major Facilities need to be the Moats, so in order for your method to work most would need near abouts a complete redesign in order to provide a sufficent defensive advantage.
Minor Outpost would require it, as I see them as having far less defensive layers, so those they have would need to be strengthened considerably in order to even provide a "Speed Bump" let alone a full "Road Block."

[Nathaniak]

It may take a long time. But it will be worth it. Even if it comes next year, it will make the game so much better. If they redid, say an outpost or to per GU, then it would eventually add up, especially if they spaced out the newer ones. Indar outposts are particulary bad, I think, so they should get priority.

Whenever someone posts 'We need more defence!', someone else (on the offical forums, at least) always puts 'No. Me and my outfit defended [random base] for hours last night!' But that outfit would have fallen apart if the attackers wern't zerging. Attackers have an innate advantage in the design of many bases, and that is insane.

[Carbon Copied]

@ Whiteeagle: Oh I definitely agree that major facilities should be your "moats"; don't get me wrong there, like I said I wouldn't envision a continent of moats as that would become a slog for all but the most dedicated.
Ref cookie-cutter response; guess I had hoped that it was more a case of installation place holders would get passes at a later date. Granted only a few months into the game's life and things can't happen overnight but still information on this sort of thing would be encourageable as opposed to "the centre of the map is made to be the best place to fight" which is simply wrong to me; a central structure piece maybe but not the best place.

How often do you hear stories of "remember how/when we took The Crown" compared to "remember how/when we took *insert name* tech plant" etc. (The Crown is a great centre piece and I'm not ditracting that - just for comparison).

[Assist]

Interesting that he says the continents are supposed to cater to fighting at the center of them, because I don't feel this at all on Amerish and I personally love Amerish the most of all the continents. Most fights on Amerish occur between Heyoka, Kwahtee, and Ikanam or between Mekala, Sungrey, and Onatha. At least it seems that way on Waterson.
Maybe that's why I like it so much, because the fighting isn't all drawn to the center of the map.

[Whiteagle]

Interesting that he says the continents are supposed to cater to fighting at the center of them, because I don't feel this at all on Amerish and I personally love Amerish the most of all the continents. Most fights on Amerish occur between Heyoka, Kwahtee, and Ikanam or between Mekala, Sungrey, and Onatha. At least it seems that way on Waterson.
Maybe that's why I like it so much, because the fighting isn't all drawn to the center of the map.
Well here is the difference between Indar and Amerish:

How often do you hear stories of "remember how/when we took The Crown" compared to "remember how/when we took *insert name* tech plant" etc. (The Crown is a great centre piece and I'm not ditracting that - just for comparison).
Indar has the Crown; a Tower on a steep hill with two easy to defend access routes.

Amerish has the motherfuckin Ascent; a Tower nested into the central Mountaintop that's hard to get to period, let alone assault in mass.
Even so, it's positioning makes it the perfect foothold for taking the rest of the Continent.
Last Saturday Night my Outfit, the Angry Army, along with EGO and ODAM, dug in there and pretty much BROKE the DVS horde's back from that position.
Not only was it fucking awesome, with DVS trying to Zerg rush us from the South from Raven's Landing, but standing our ground wore them out enough to give up on the entire Continent.
That feel when you were part of the Operation that allowed your Zerg to rush to the other end of the Map man...


That said, Amerish strikes me as a better outer to intermediate Continent on the Warpgrid, balanced more for two factions in the North fighting over the the Gate in the South.
Indar on the other hand is probably the best candidate for the Central Map, better bananced for three Factions that will be deadlocked unless one flanks another's Gate on the Warpgrid.

[Hamma]

Some stuff I really don't like on that list but overall not bad.

[HelpLuperza]

Regardless of whose idea is better/more logical is irrelevant; it doesn't change the fact of the current setup seemingly doesn't feel "right" to many (based on the thoughts its sparked in here and also past threads / discussions); nor does it change the fallout from the person that has the directive to making these changes (at a sub departmental level). Instead seemingly continue to desire a deathmatch arena trend.


Hmm.. Well I read your post and made some edits to my previous post.
I think we both agree that SOE is at a crossroads as game is only as good as its gameplay and its gameplay is only as good as its variety.


This is mainly because my main point was the concern that SOE needs to also talking about how their new weapons will be affected by their changes to terrian. The logic was one example of an interconnected system leads to how players, in this case TR Connery, act. This a feel is relativant because not matter how much variaty you have in the terrian, its the terrian that shapes the game play in how it affects your movement and weapons not the other way around.



We both want variety; however, I think we are emphasing different forms of the variety this game presents.

I am saying is that as SOE change the terrian, SOE needs to make people more aware of how new/old weapons can benifit or suffer from the new terrian by doing or not doing things we are used to. (For example, make people more aware of how ESL, ESF, and new Maxes benifit or suffer from the new terrian based on how effective they are in small scale or large scale weapons.)


A completely different way of saying the same thing I just said:
_________
Personally, I think their alot of variety of the terrain as the orientation of boxes, the mountain walkways in biolabs, the ability to hide from 3 666 platoons using a catcus.

So, If you want to go to moats and terrian then we can talk about which classes do you think really benifit from moats? is it just light assults? but don't light assaults already have a new way of getting into a bio lab? ...
.... what about medics? What terrain do they benefit from? ....

There is alot variety of terrain; however, I don't think we have scratched the surface of its uses.

Some stuff I really don't like on that list but overall not bad.
lol I think that summarizes alot of us here lol :)

[p0intman]

Spawnrooms are not gonna be moved inside superstructure.
No plans to change tunnels.
What a fucking idiot this guy is. He doesn't have any fucking clue about how bases should be designed.

Somebody remind me what the battleship idea was? It probably isn't important because I don't remember it.



Center of the map is always made to be "the best place to fight at" and is always a "signature place"
dumb idea, EVERY facility should be a 'best place to fight at' not just the center of the map. GRAHHHHHHH!
Facilities around warpgates will be facing the direction opposite to the warpgate in the future
Bad, especially with inter-warpgate travel without using terms in the future.
No plans to change tunnels.
Dude has no fucking idea what is wrong with them. My fucking god this makes me rage.

Navage just made my shitlist along with whisenhunt and smedley.

[Carbon Copied]

@HelpLuperza: Think our wires may be crossed or I'm not reading your post right but I wasn't saying that the terrain/bases should all have actual moats; I think the terrain design is well formed and plays to a good layout that can be exploited in an attack/defense scenario. I was more using the comparison on the bases/installations themselves where tech/bio labs and amp stations I feel should be the equivalent to your "castle and moat" style battles.

Currently they feel like most of the time anyone can just walk over a major facility and they're nothing but a "speed bump" in a chain of events.
Don't get me wrong if a major facility is poorly defended even with re-imagined outer wall/courtyards etc. then it should still fall to attackers it's not about having an impenetrable fortress - but at least lets not leave the front door wide open or "the castle drawbridge" down ;) ...

[Rolfski]

Did any of the haters here actually watch the stream? Because the bullet-point summary in this topic put his words somewhat out of context. Many of these points are just initial ideas like holes in the roof, not really set in stone.

[NewSith]

Did any of the haters here actually watch the stream? Because the bullet-point summary in this topic put his words somewhat out of context. Many of these points are just initial ideas like holes in the roof, not really set in stone.

I was waiting for this. It is not put out of the context. "Not set in stone" doesn't mean "We will not do it". It means "We will not do it if it doesn't go well".

[basti]

Spawning inside vehicles a-la Battlefield.

WHAT THE HELL? NO!




For the rest: Well, fun to see how we slowly get closer and closer to Planetside 1. Wonder why? Because it worked. Good tho that they dont just replicate it. Going full Planetside 1 wouldnt work (tunnels would be a rather pain with the new TTK etc ;) ), so rather approach the old slow and see what works well and what fails.