Bridges - I like them, but is there a point to them?

[Kipper]

I've just watched the video in the TB tower thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=47017) and wanted to talk about bridges, in particular:

I like what I see in the video - I think everything is going to be a lot less samey with potential for varied types of combat inside and around facilities and just out in the open too.

Bridges concerns me slightly though - I love a good bridge battle, they can get pretty epic as you try to cross, or stop people from crossing what is often something with very little cover and very few places to hide on it. You can try and flank the enemy by either finding what's usually long way round, or by a risky air drop where most people will die but you might end up being lucky and taking out some or all of the defenders, to allow your side to cross.

So here's the concern. Few to none of these bridges appear to span anything that's actually impassable - so why am I going to fight to cross a bridge when it looks as though 95% of the time, I can just walk/take a vehicle down into a small ravine and up the other side? How am I going to defend a bridge (and why would I bother) when denying the use of it to my enemy isn't slowing them down or forcing them to use a significantly longer route or air units to get to where they want?

To me, it seems they need either some water, or at the very least, some steep edges so that if you're in the canyon, you can't drive a vehicle back out of it - maybe with some that are short enough to allow LA to jump out, but some shouldn't be - these canyons should be areas that you don't generally want to be in if you're trying just to get to the other side, imo. (but you might want to be in if you're wanting to get to wherever it leads without being seen).

Also - although I'm not in beta and haven't seen all the streams - it would seem (at least so far) that there are no hexes that are defined by strategically important bridges - as in, a couple of buildings; maybe a vehicle pad or spawn but where the main feature is a bridge with one or several capture points.

And finally - It may be nice to see if you could take out a bridge, either as you retreat from one you lost, or as a strategic play to cut off reinforcements to another facility your faction is attacking/defending. Of course they should self repair slowly, and/or have the option for engineers to bring them back up - but this is one piece of destructible environment that I think would enhance the strategic side.

[Boone]

Seemed to be put in their for nostalgia from the looks of it. There is so much we haven't seen though.

[Crazyduckling]

The one bridge in TBs video did seem a bit short, but on the map, you could clearly see one that was much much longer. Look at 17:07.

[Hosp]

*Puts on Tinfoil Helmet*

I think many people seem to be forgetting that we only have details about 1 continent. To my knowledge, only 1 continent is playing in Beta. So, why have any green space in what should otherwise be a desert continent?

My Theory: The devs needed a test continent to try out different terrains and base placements w/o releasing all the continents. Enter Indar. Desert Flats, Rocky Canyons, Rolling Hills and a little bit of other stuff in between.

The fact they could go "Hey, lets put this in the release" is merely a useful byproduct of their test continent. Because they can see how people are interacting with the bases and terrains in the various zones on Indar, they can better make Amerish and Esamir, and based on those + Indar after release, can better make more continents down the line.

*Removes Tinfoil Helmet*

As you were.

[Sledgecrushr]

To get from one side of the plateau to the next.

[AThreatToYou]

Bridges are FRIGGIN COOL BRAH. What more reason do you need to have them, fight over them, and want them? I mean, really. They are cool. Take them.

[Comet]

Some bridges do seem to serve no purpose. There are some that do fulfil the role of an actual bridge however and that you'll want to fight over. Judging from some Higby streams anyway. We'll see once we all get in beta.

[Blackwolf]

That ravine looked pretty impassible to me. In the 2 hour beta streams with Higby, they fought around that bridge trying to take the base that over looks it from the VS. There was only narrow passage that lead up the ravine on the east side that lead towards the VS base. On foot and in a vehicle, that terrain is a nightmare and it can be hard to see that without actually being there.

That ravine is very big, something that is lost in TB's video because he spends more of his time flying around the area and not walking around it.

The bridge itself has a support structure underneath it that you can get into and shoot at people in the ravine from. It's also wide enough for 2 Vanguards to drive down side by side, possibly 3, and still plenty of room for infantry to take cover and take shots at said Vanguards. In addition to the underside of the bridge, you have the top side which you can get to with jump packs or possibly on foot, allowing you to shoot down at those crossing the bridge. The bridge in that scene also provides excellent cover for snipers hitting the ridgeline around the nearby base, which itself is a very tough base to take because it involves a steep climb around a bend through a narrow passage that is easily defensible.

[Memeotis]

Unless they span across water, bridges aren't supposed to be bottlenecks. They're supposed to be territory that, if you hold it, will allow you to streamline ground transport and reinforcement. They can be, but they're not intended to be places just for combat.

[Kipper]

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

Bridges are FRIGGIN COOL BRAH. What more reason do you need to have them, fight over them, and want them? I mean, really. They are cool. Take them.

Agreed to that, the concerns are twofold:

1. Bridge needs to be a significantly quicker way from point A to point B to make it worth fighting over.

2. Bridge needs to span something you can't just walk across to make it so that to take the bridge, you have to cross the bridge. Air drops are valid to get troops across, as are (in some, but not all cases for variety) LA jumps or even quad jumps - but allowing people to walk/drive down one side of a ravine and back up the other in next to no time renders the bridge pointless. Given the danger involved in doing so, why would you try to cross it? (and as a defender, you're meant to be able to understand where the main zerg attack is likely to come from).

In the TB video, the bridge around 16/17 minutes appeared (from what I saw) to span a very shallow dip which looked like you could cross it anywhere, or just walk around it for the sake of a few seconds. To have value, a bridge needs to take off a couple of minutes travel time.

Originally Posted by Comet

Some bridges do seem to serve no purpose. There are some that do fulfil the role of an actual bridge however and that you'll want to fight over. Judging from some Higby streams anyway. We'll see once we all get in beta.

That's good to know! I haven't watched all the higby streams, there's starting to be more footage than I have time to sit and watch, so I've not seen everything you guys have.

[Stardouser]

There's no point to them without water. The videos look like Indar is a dry continent and when that happens you can just let your vehicles/etc fall down into the canyons somewhere, and then find a place to get back up. Perhaps the other continents will have water and will provide a purpose to bridges.

[Boone]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

There's no point to them without water. The videos look like Indar is a dry continent and when that happens you can just let your vehicles/etc fall down into the canyons somewhere, and then find a place to get back up. Perhaps the other continents will have water and will provide a purpose to bridges.

I think the bridge serves it purpose with what you just described . Not sure why a bridge needs water around it to be useful.

[SeanNewBoy]

The bridge in the 8-08 video crossed a ravine that would take minutes to cross on foot, and possibly not at all by ground vehicle, im not sure about MAX'es. Im a big fan of combined arms, if anything worthwile was on the other side of that bridge, i would rather have the bridge than just take the air route. Any large force should be able to get to a destination at nearly the same time.

[Traenor]

I certainly agree that there probably isnt much sense in bridges for infrantry. However, since bridges often span sizeable ravines as far as i can see, it is very important if you want MBT´s and sunderers over.

[Crator]

Don't forget guys. This is just Indar. There very well could be bridges that you MUST cross (no other way around it except to cross it). And again, we've only seen specific parts of Indar via the videos too.