A plea regarding bases, towers, and bunkers

[FIREk]

I think Huma is referring to some of PlanetSide's structure where a tree is actually slapped smack in front of a turret, which is indeed ridiculous.

On the other hand, I'm under the impression that everyone else (the "It's fine" people) thinks that he wants all bases, towers, outposts and bunkers to have no rocks, trees or any cover at all within those "realistic" 50 meters, which in turn would be just as ridiculous in terms of gameplay.

You can't expect the enemy to come rolling with ground transport all the time, so no cover = bad, but I don't think no cover was the point.

On the other hand, even if anyone thinks no cover is fine, you can't expect engagements to be that much bigger than in PS1 - there will be more contestable territory, so the fighting will likely be bigger (more people), but proportionally spread out across an actual "front line".

[Huma]

Originally Posted by FIREk

I think Huma is referring to some of PlanetSide's structure where a tree is actually slapped smack in front of a turret, which is indeed ridiculous.

On the other hand, I'm under the impression that everyone else (the "It's fine" people) thinks that he wants all bases, towers, outposts and bunkers to have no rocks, trees or any cover at all within those "realistic" 50 meters, which in turn would be just as ridiculous in terms of gameplay.

You can't expect the enemy to come rolling with ground transport all the time, so no cover = bad, but I don't think no cover was the point.

On the other hand, even if anyone thinks no cover is fine, you can't expect engagements to be that much bigger than in PS1 - there will be more contestable territory, so the fighting will likely be bigger (more people), but proportionally spread out across an actual "front line".

Well according to the devs facilities, towers, and bunkers will exert their own influence and will be able to capture adjacent hexes on their own. At the same time their very presence will also increase the capture times on those adjacent hexes. This gives these structures a very high importance in both offensive and defensive strategies.
I think the front line will BR spread out a little bit but your still going to see the Zerg butting their heads against the structures the most. So in essence these structures will literally dominate the areas around them and will be the focal point of battles.
I'm willing to concede that there should be some cover but turrets shouldn't be blocked up. Besides your also forgetting that engineers are going to be getting a lot more "toys". I'm sure they will have the capability to deploy sufficient cover for the grunts

[Malorn]

So what you're really asking is that turrets have good line of sight and don't have significant chunks of their field of vision blocked by a tree.

[opticalshadow]

Originally Posted by Malorn

So what you're really asking is that turrets have good line of sight and don't have significant chunks of their field of vision blocked by a tree.

i would guess that would be a bit better to say then the previous statement. i mean noone builds a gun that cant work.

and while i think thats reasonable, to just totally remove cover objects within a bases walls would do more bad then good.

[Crator]

No one yet knows if they will have evolving/destructable environments. At least I've not heard as much yet. If they do, I would suspect you could clear the obstructions from locations for your purposes.

[opticalshadow]

Originally Posted by Crator

No one yet knows if they will have evolving/destructable environments. At least I've not heard as much yet. If they do, I would suspect you could clear the obstructions from locations for your purposes.

i wouldnt think they would. given the amount of actual firearms in any given area, and the fact its not likly to be abandoned for an extreamly long time, you would either onl have trees and rocks for about 10 minutes or they would just start popping up out of the blue.


i think they said something about some thing about some destroyable placeables like barrels (that could ahve been a suggestion) but id really really doubt we can mow down a tree.

[Peacemaker]

Half agree. Needs to be less cover. Approaching an enemy base should be dangerous. not "hazardous". There was too much cover in PS and it didn't make sence. The walls were worthless because people on the ground often had the advantage to those on the walls, the cover gave them too many attack direction options, while if you were on the wall you were very limited.

[Sovereign]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

The walls were worthless because people on the ground often had the advantage to those on the walls, the cover gave them too many attack direction options, while if you were on the wall you were very limited.

This to me is the epitome of faulty base features that needs the reform, its as if the walls were no more defensive then picket fences. Bases like castles are meant to employ walls as consequential part of base defense and the fact that most people in last game simply avoided their use as if it were the plaque warrants the needed change.

Very good point made there.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

Half agree. Needs to be less cover. Approaching an enemy base should be dangerous. not "hazardous". There was too much cover in PS and it didn't make sence. The walls were worthless because people on the ground often had the advantage to those on the walls, the cover gave them too many attack direction options, while if you were on the wall you were very limited.

It is already extremely dangerous to attack an enemy base. I would choose to defend over attack 100 out of 100 times. Grenades are so much more effective against attackers than defenders, and the fact that you can "attack from too many directions" (which isn't true since you can attack from any part of the wall) is moot when the enemy has radar and grenades.

The only thing I agree with in this thread is that there shouldn't be trees five feet in front of wall turrets.

[nathanebht]

They base defenders should have the advantage of a cleared killing ground. You should need a significant advantage in numbers to take a base. I don't think a cleared killing ground will make the PS2 un-fun. It will just help prevent mindless zerg rushes.

[tjmonk15]

While i have heard/seen people say fun > realism, making things fair from an offensive vs. defensive position means leaning towards realism.

In real life, "bases" (read castles, bases, outposts, forward positions, etc.) always favor the defensive. And it should be the same in PS2. Favor the defenders.

Go log in PS1 and tell me people actually stick around to defend a base vs. just falling back and trying to protect the next base. Defenders need a chance to win. in PS1, attackers always win, its just a matter of when.

Defenders should have a chance to win, ie. push out the invaders and secure their location. and then push forward. In PS1, defenders just stuck around for a little bit to get some bexp then fell back once they were dying too much. They never really had a chance to hold their base (Not once a sizable force decided to attack, no matter how large the defending force.)

An attacking force should 100% be fighting an up hill battle. This fact (in game) will do nothing besides help the persistence mechanic of Planet-Side. A player knows if he helped capture a base, more than likely will still be on his side tomorrow (or any time in the future, if this aspect is honored)

-Monk

[Bags]

Originally Posted by tjmonk15

While i have heard/seen people say fun > realism, making things fair from an offensive vs. defensive position means leaning towards realism.

In real life, "bases" (read castles, bases, outposts, forward positions, etc.) always favor the defensive. And it should be the same in PS2. Favor the defenders.

Go log in PS1 and tell me people actually stick around to defend a base vs. just falling back and trying to protect the next base. Defenders need a chance to win. in PS1, attackers always win, its just a matter of when.

Defenders should have a chance to win, ie. push out the invaders and secure their location. and then push forward. In PS1, defenders just stuck around for a little bit to get some bexp then fell back once they were dying too much. They never really had a chance to hold their base (Not once a sizable force decided to attack, no matter how large the defending force.)

An attacking force should 100% be fighting an up hill battle. This fact (in game) will do nothing besides help the persistence mechanic of Planet-Side. A player knows if he helped capture a base, more than likely will still be on his side tomorrow (or any time in the future, if this aspect is honored)

-Monk

Given equal pops the defenders can easily win. It's only a matter of "when not if" when they attackers outpop. And if you outpop your enemy you should win.

And what the hell are you talking about? Nobody falls back from "dying too much" on defense. The people attacking are the ones dying too much.

Attacking is an uphill battle in ps1.


quick question, do any of you guys actually play planetside?

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by Bags

Given equal pops the defenders can easily win.

Word. 3 day long Irkalla and Dagda fights say hello.

[Bags]

miss read

[MasterChief096]

You can't even take a base in which both empires have 50% pop on a continent. The attackers (nowadays) have to outpop the defenders by at least 20% to see any real advantage. To me thats enough favoring of the defenders. And I'm not sure what that one guy was worrying about, but I never see an entire empire start dying too much on defense and then just go fall back to the next base to wait for the attackers. 99% of the time we hold the CC, tubes, and gen till the last man. You don't wan to make base defenses too OP. In real life base defenses can be overpowered, because in real life all we care about is winning. In PlanetSide there needs to be balance. We can't just have bases with uber killing fields and defensives so that the attacker needs 40% more pop to be able to have any hope of getting past the defenses.