Building Forward Bases - Supply Bases.

[Brusi]

Would love to see sandbagging as well, but depending on how the engineers deployable shields work... It might even be possible to set up a forward base with defensive walls? ;p

Oh, also what ever happened to the idea of deployable towers?

[DviddLeff]

Yeah its a good idea, here it is fleshed out a bit more:
https://sites.google.com/site/planet...icle-overhauls

Same idea for Gal/Lode, with additional ideas for specific AMS functions (these ideas were designed around PS, not PS2).

Also here are Hayoo's ideas for deployable emplacements:
http://www.planetside-idealab.com/id...acements.shtml

Looking directly at PS2 and its current absence of AMS and Lodestars, I think that the Sunderer and the Gal should have options:

• Heavy weapon
• Regenerating shield (when deployed)
• Cloaking field (when deployed)
• Vehicle repair bank (when deployed)
• Spawn point (when deployed)
• Command uplink (various command features that extend the information given to the commander and the options that they have to direct their troops (RTS controls perhaps)

This allows players to design their vehicles for specific roles further; say they want to stealthily set up a spawn point, then they take a Sunderer and hide it with the cloak.

But yeah, I definitely want to see the Lodestar back, and acting as a vehicle spawn point.

[Juneau]

In terms of balancing the loady as a vehicle spawn point how about giving it a fixed pool of NTU to build from, no tech vehicles and a construction time, so you could land the loady and your squadmates pull 5 ATV's before the NTU runs out, or only 2 lightnings and if you want any more then the loady has to go refuel from somewhere, say the foothold or something, while the construction time limit (or maybe even just a cooldown period between vehicle creation) stops the situation where a loady lands behind your lines and suddenly you have a whole squad of lightnings up your ass.

[Zenben]

I think a cool option for the Sunderer to add something more to this idea would be to somehow allow it to be spec'd to sacrifice transport slots for the ability to deploy some sort of wall, like out of the back of it or something.

[SkitzoSniper]

Originally Posted by Higby

Pretty cool! This is along the lines of how we want to see deploy-able vehicles and overall logistics work for sure.

This one post you made is already more information than we ever recieved from the original Planetside team

[Hmr85]

I do not know how I missed this thread. But from what I have read so far. I absolutely love the Idea. I really think this is the route they should go with the vehicles.

[Shogun]

that´s how it should work, but i am afraid, i heard higby saying deployable vehicles will still have the limitation soi like the ams had.

this limit has to go to be able to build up a nice effective forward base. if you have to spread your support stuff out because there is a 50m deployrestriction radius around every deployed vehicle the whole beauty of this idea is gone.

if the limitation soi has to stay, please give the pilots an indicator. a red circle projected on the ground (like the old vehicle seat enterspot projections) around all limiting vehicles so he can directly go for the free spot without having to land and take off 400 times before he gets a valid deployment spot. this was aweful with the ams already, with a plane it would suck extremely.

but please get rid of this limitation, or at least for all non spawnpoint vehicles! if the TTK is anything like we have seen in the gdc footage, forward bases have to be heavyly fortified to stand a chance, so a phalanx of mana turrets and sunderers will be needed. being able to only deploy one thing of each type will not be enough to defend against airborne attacks

[Brusi]

I personally would rather see additional deployable devices or vehicles that are custom designed, modelled and animated for these purposes, rather than just making the sunderer into another deployable vehicle.

[Miir]

I really like the idea of forward bases. I actually just did another post about it as a possible way to get rid of empire footholds using a forward operating base idea. (see below)

Originally Posted by Miir

Probably should clarify that I don't want continent locks. Merely I'm not a fan of static footholds. (or Sanctuaries).

However I do believe that the current system is flawed and will result in statemates and gameplay stagnation. Here are a few maps of Indar I recreated for this discussion.

First here is the current system and where my original stalemate assumptions came from. This shows the 3 empire footholds. (disclaimer I made this based on this image and the top was cut off so I made some guesses)


Next I tagged all the main bases in yellow which I imagine will play an important role in the game.


Next given the close proximity to each foothold (2 to 3 hexes) I tagged which empire would likely have the best advantages to take the bases.


From there I just filled in the rest of the hexes around the bases. These are sort of gimme's since they all are within a couple hexes of the foothold. What's left (the black areas) is what would be considered the "front lines" and will likely change often. Not to say people won't attack outside of those areas it's just that it will be considerably harder to maintain a push so close to an enemy foothold. Thus leading to the "stalemate scenario".


What I'd prefer they do is get rid of the footholds and utilize the "green zone" around the perimeter of the map.


In this "green zone" empires would be able to randomly deploy "Forward Operating Bases (FOB's)" to stage attacks from.


The major benefit I see to this is it would randomize the areas of the map that people would be coming from and it would also allow an entire continent to be captured (though unlikely)


In the event that one empire was just clearly better than the rest and managed to take over the entire continent. It would still allow the other two empires to re-deploy their FOB's and start to attack again to get a foothold.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Miir

I really like the idea of forward bases. I actually just did another post about it as a possible way to get rid of empire footholds using a forward operating base idea. (see below)

It sounds like a good concept that would feel less claustrophobic than sanctuary footholds.

Spawn points around the map (and progressively inside as your empire captures zones) makes the center a very interesting strategic target. Being able to spawn around the map also keeps the game dynamic and open. It's about starting outside the map and getting inside instead of being inside already and moving out from those static points.

A lot of things can be designed around spawn mechanics. The flying bases or drop-pods from space were such ideas.

I like yours because players choose their spawn points, where they are placed and devs can still place restrictions for the players (small greens, slow spawn point movement, map designs where entering a continent is easier at certain points, etc...).

Very promising ideas that show there are still original possibilities we have not thought about.

[Valcron]

Evil Piglet, great idea.

[WaryWizard]

Originally Posted by Miir

I really like the idea of forward bases. I actually just did another post about it as a possible way to get rid of empire footholds using a forward operating base idea. (see below)

I think they should have a test server with this implementation of "green zones". Who knows, it could end up being the greatest change of all.

[kaffis]

I'd rather see more modular rather than more packaged deployable defenses and whatnot.

I like the idea of engineers building MANA turrets and deployable cover shields to protect a deployed support vehicle better than beefing up the vehicle's defenses as part of the deploy mode.

[Kurtz]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

.

World War 2 Online also has built forward bases though I don't know how they are built.

forward bases in WW2Online are basically an infy spawn and a vehicle spawn. You capture it much like capping a flag in BF series conquest.

You defend by spawning vehicles, AA and infy.

It can be taken out with Sappers (think Support in BF3) placing an explosive charge on the Spawn. 4 renders that spawn useless. Once the spawns are destroyed, infy can cap the flag.

Whats nice about WW2online is that you have to defend your FBs if you want to succeed in capping a town.

One person has said that a vehicle spawn at the FB is a bad idea, but actually it is absolutely necessary so that it doesn't become farmville.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Kurtz

forward bases in WW2Online are basically an infy spawn and a vehicle spawn. You capture it much like capping a flag in BF series conquest.

Did this change? When I last played there was always a FB base between towns owned by opposing countries. You did not capture them at all. To gain a forward base, you destroyed the enemy's, then your forward base would appear. It was the towns and cities that were captured though a flag mechanic.