Concerned about facility level design

Nick · 2012-03-12, 01:51 AM

As you all know, in Planetside 1, fighting facilities were a massive part of the game. I really appreciate all the work that is going into Planetside 2 by SOE to make the game more spread out and fun for everyone. However, I'm a bit concerned from the video footage and statements made by developers on Planetside 2 facilities.

In Planetside 1, you could easily hold a base against greater odds using good tactics and strategy. However, from what we've seen of Planetside 2, it seems like the base is more spread out and open. There's no more hellish chokepoints where back and forth "cluster" battles happen. This eliminates many opportunities to hold ground, and I'm afraid that sheer numbers will be more important than before. Yes, there are choke points. However, there are many ways to easily circumvent them (like walking around the one building instead of funneling through like when Higby got TK'ed).

Obviously, some of the stuff we've seen is really nice out of facilities, but please bring back the underground corridors and narrow hallways below the bases and courtyards in addition to what is already in place.

The control console is much too exposed, despite there being shield generators. I realize this is an AMP Station but I hope we get to see these underground and more of a "last stand" area like in Planetside 1. Speaking of the generators, that artificial shield generator mechanic seems kind of stupid. Oh sorry, your 600 man army can't get in this room because there's a door with a shield blocking it. Lame.

Please no "wait for Beta" routine either, by then most of the design decisions are set in stone. It's in alpha and we've seen the game, so being negative at this point will mean more positive later on (and fun factor).

NCLynx · 2012-03-12, 01:54 AM

We'll have to see what they're all like during beta. I think it's been said that we take bases chunk by chunk with a sort of check point ish feel. It depends on the base, and where that base is too though.

I'm sure it worries a lot of us but from the sound of it there will be a decent amount of choke points for the attackers once things start pushing towards the spawn and the most high priority sections of a base.

Nick · 2012-03-12, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by NCLynx

We'll have to see what they're all like during beta. I think it's been said that we take bases chunk by chunk with a sort of check point ish feel. It depends on the base, and where that base is too though.

I'm sure it worries a lot of us but from the sound of it there will be a decent amount of choke points for the attackers once things start pushing towards the spawn and the most high priority sections of a base.

Which reminds me of what I forgot in my first post, do we really need more BF3 copy/paste? I don't want to have artificial objectives in a base defense or attack. Great, it tells the newbies what to do. Stop overkilling it. Let the players create their own battle: devs are there to give us the playground. I don't want to play Planetside 2: Conquest Mode. Missions are fine, but we don't need "direction" on how to defend and attack a base. It works and is already fun.

cellinaire · 2012-03-12, 02:03 AM

I believe that this new 'mission' system is mainly for commander's sake. I think we can choose to not use this feature if we so desire. Well, we will see about it, though.

Nick · 2012-03-12, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by cellinaire

I believe that this new 'mission' system is mainly for commander's sake. I think we can choose to not use this feature if we so desire. Well, we will see about it, though.

The way Higby made it sound was that each base has predetermined objectives to 'win'. Different phases of the fight, if you will. If you get unlucky on a Shield Generator defuse, you might be boned for the rest of the fight. Engineers might even be able to repair the Shield Generators, but you know how defenses can collapse even if the Generator falls for a minute or two in Planetside 1.

So blowing up Shield Generators: copy and paste from Search and Destroy (CoD)/Rush (BF).

Capturing areas of base: copy and paste from Conquest (BF).

I dunno, I guess I'm just pessimistic. I wouldn't mind this stuff all so much if we just had a Control Console that's in a position that is very defensible underground at the bottom of the base with narrow corridors you can use as choke points.

Higby, this is why map design in Starcraft is so important to make the natural expansions have chokes reasonably tight/narrow. So you can use defensive things like Bunkers, Force Fields, Spine Crawlers, etc. Without that ability to defend, all-ining is much more prevalent (or in the case of Planetside - zerging).

Really random thoughts as I don't know where to focus my concern, and it's very hard to with still so little information on the game. Anyone else feel the same way?

NCLynx · 2012-03-12, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by Nick

The way Higby made it sound was that each base has predetermined objectives to 'win'. Different phases of the fight, if you will. If you get unlucky on a Shield Generator defuse, you might be boned for the rest of the fight. Engineers might even be able to repair the Shield Generators, but you know how defenses can collapse even if the Generator falls for a minute or two in Planetside 1.

From the way I saw it sounded pretty similar to your standard base cap in the original. Take the CY first of course, start pushing in take the lobby, move down take down tubes and then hack & hold. OR you had the option to go through the back door and do a gen drop OR take down tubes or both.

To me it sounded like there were certainly objectives but there's still as many options and ways to go about completing said objectives as there always was.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-12, 03:43 AM

Why does a small number of people deserve a huge defensive advantage?

Death2All · 2012-03-12, 03:58 AM

Personally, I found the base designs in PS1 hellish.

They were far too compact and claustrophobic. It was irritating as hell to attack a base. I was really happy to see the new wide open base design. It's less about spamming and more about using cover effectively.

I'm sure that there are smaller areas, but I really hope nothing as severe as it was in PS1.

kadrin · 2012-03-12, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Why does a small number of people deserve a huge defensive advantage?

Well, considering these are bases that are designed around the idea that they will be attacked, and therefore need to be defended, you'd design them to give the defenders as much as an advantage as possible and the attackers as much as a disadvantage as possible. It's common sense and it applies in the real world, if anyone is ever expecting that they could be attacked they prepare their position or base accordingly. It's why castles and forts exist in the first place, it's why trenches and bunkers are used, and why they usually clear the land around them to create "kill zones".

Heck, in reality, for an assault to be considered possible the attacker must have at least 3-1 odds, or a severe technological edge.

The real question is, why would you design a defensive position (such as a base) that could be taken easily? Why not just leave everything out in the open?

CutterJohn · 2012-03-12, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by kadrin

The real question is, why would you design a defensive position (such as a base) that could be taken easily? Why not just leave everything out in the open?

Largely because its a game about taking territory. The bases need to be able to be taken. If you made it so the attackers needed 3 for every 1 defender, nothing would ever get taken. It'd be like one of those 24/7 2fort instant respawn servers. Nearly impossible to get anything accomplished because the defense is too strong.

Plus the RL offenses advantage of being able to blow holes in stuff, or just level the place if its too much effort, is nonexistent.

So, why would you design it that way? For gameplay, of course.

Knocky · 2012-03-12, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Largely because its a game about taking territory. The bases need to be able to be taken. If you made it so the attackers needed 3 for every 1 defender, nothing would ever get taken. It'd be like one of those 24/7 2fort instant respawn servers. Nearly impossible to get anything accomplished because the defense is too strong.

Plus the RL offenses advantage of being able to blow holes in stuff, or just level the place if its too much effort, is nonexistent.

So, why would you design it that way? For gameplay, of course.

MOST territory is controlled by small/large outposts. There are few massive complexes on the map.

Personally I am glad to see that apparently the massive bases are designed to force tanks to stay out. We will have to see how well a plane can do inside the barriers. And yeah....for the most part defenders will always have the advantage as long as they can spawn inside the area they are defending. If they can't spawn there...then they are screwed since we will have the outside secure.

Pozidriv · 2012-03-12, 09:05 AM

The thing about this thread that brings a smile to my face is how opposite this discussion is compared to Mordor (UK). Most of Mordor despise the map "Metro" in BF3, because it's a massive chokepoint full of RPG / grenade and USAS frags spam and yet here we have the opposite

.

Do people really want indoor fighting to devolve into a 60+ player spam fest of screen shaking gobbledigook? The added verticality that was apparent in the GDC videos look extremely promising.

kadrin · 2012-03-12, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Largely because its a game about taking territory. The bases need to be able to be taken. If you made it so the attackers needed 3 for every 1 defender, nothing would ever get taken. It'd be like one of those 24/7 2fort instant respawn servers. Nearly impossible to get anything accomplished because the defense is too strong.

Plus the RL offenses advantage of being able to blow holes in stuff, or just level the place if its too much effort, is nonexistent.

So, why would you design it that way? For gameplay, of course.

Hopefully I didn't come off as advocating ridiculous bases, I was just citing how this works in reality with the need for 3-1 odds and such, I completely understand the need for balance, being able to actually capture a base and progress rather than get stalemates all over.

But base defenses still need to be at least somewhat extensive, make a decent fight out of them, it's not fun if they're completely impregnable but it's also not fun if they're just walks in the park.

You also bring up an excellent point about not being able to just blow holes or level places, but looking at the map and how everything is currently connected, it seems you can also cutoff sections. This seems to suggest that areas that aren't connected will have less resources or energy or whatever they're implementing, which would be absolutely fantastic for base assaults. Base too hard to take? Encircle it, cut it off from the supply lines, maybe now they can't get MAXs or tanks from the base.

Graywolves · 2012-03-12, 01:05 PM

A base that can't be defended for more than 10 minutes when you're heavily outpopped means possibly an entire empire of players not having fun.

Rivenshield · 2012-03-12, 04:23 AM

I share OP's concerns, but I'm more in wait-and-see mode.

*My* only worry is if the bases are so goddam huge, can you see and hear what's going on at the opposite end of the base...? In PS1 you'd spawn, run for ten-fifteen seconds, and possibly die in the stairwell. Here you might run around for a minute or two, unable to see what's going on, desperate to go to the right place and help, and POW! That's not fun.