PS2 Base Design

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Figment

The problem I have with drops is that you drop first, see what is out there later.

And if you put a shield over it with complete cover of a floor, that isn't good either from an attack perspective. Hence why I did use a shield after the drop (with elevators), which then ended on a secure room with two entrances and some safe walls. You could clear that small area, then use the next area to try and clear the room in a fight. A mini buffer zone so to speak.

I'm only not happy with its vulnerability to instagib grenade spam. The 2nd lobby should have sufficient cover to get out those two doors into other positions so if spammed it works more as flushing out than farming.

Well you are going to need a much different second floor layout if you are going to fit two two-stage spawn exit rooms on it, but two of them should prevent grenade spam by making each less vulnerable...


...But from the sounds of it, you are going to have to redesign the top level as well just to accommodate same elevator set-up.

I don't know how much more I can discuss without pulling up MS Paint and drawing blueprints, and I really haven't the energy for that tonight...

[Figment]

But wait! There's more!


I'm also very much in favour of raising some tower buildings completely beyond the (external!) reach of Light Assaults.

Gal Drops ladies and gentlemen. Gal Drops.

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by Figment

But wait! There's more!


I'm also very much in favour of raising some tower buildings completely beyond the (external!) reach of Light Assaults.

Gal Drops ladies and gentlemen. Gal Drops.

I do love me some gal drops, but looking at that picture with the two pillboxes and the mainly subterranean base on the bottom right...am I reading that wrong or is the ONLY way to building B through the spawns? It seems important to have at least two routes that lead near to, but not directly through spawns.
Other than that, looks like all good shit, I particularly like the part where on at least some buildings LA can't just hop over everything.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by bpostal

I do love me some gal drops, but looking at that picture with the two pillboxes and the mainly subterranean base on the bottom right...am I reading that wrong or is the ONLY way to building B through the spawns? It seems important to have at least two routes that lead near to, but not directly through spawns.

It's just a two dimensional principle image.

I'd expect at least two routes around the spawns, plus getting in more directly from the outside to the CC.

Other than that, looks like all good shit, I particularly like the part where on at least some buildings LA can't just hop over everything.

I think it's extremely important. It just makes bypassing too easy and Galaxies obsolete right now.

[Babyfark McGeez]

We discussed this topic to death, so i will just repeat my summary of the last thread about this:

Instead of cluttering objectives and spawns around in what is basically the courtyard of a base the design should be more strictly linear, with this basic formula for all bases and outposts in mind (from a defenders perspective):
Spawnroom -> Spawn Gen -> Capture Point(s) (/Capture Mechanic)-> Courtyard

Vehicles should only have access to the Courtyard area. Shields and associated gens, basically obstacles, can be added between the different "stages", to make fights longer.

[Rahabib]

is it just me or does SOE like that its so easy to capture now. They seem to go out of their way to make it easier for bases to be captured.

[Qwan]

Originally Posted by Timealude

Right now, I feel this change to the tech plant was made because of the huge amount of farming that was done this weekend at them. This imo wasnt a good change simply because now the game causes even more tank spam there there already was. In fact if you have enough tanks and a few sundys you count take a tech planet in 10 minutes easy. This is way too fast imo and at this rate I will start growing very bored simply because there are only two capture strategies now. If anything they should have made tech plants even harder to take because of how much of a bonus they give compared to the bio labs and amp stations.

Hmm good point, I can remember one of the dev stating that they wanted to get rid of the original bases because of the choke point fights, and I think that the tech plant was creating that. At the back (or front) doors players were trying to run threw that door and getting slaughter. Also there is that crack over the side shields, a engi with a turret can get quite a few kills waiting for a LA to come that way. But with tanks spamming the doors and then letting up for a second can give the infantry the break they need. Ive also learned with a sniper posted at the right point you can take out guys camping the gap at the shield, opening up the door for LA assaults with grenades to boot. I for one dont like the base design exept maybe the bio lab (my prefered preference), but the way there designed once the enemy gets in and gets a foot hold its pretty much over IMO.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Figment

I'm also very much in favour of raising some tower buildings completely beyond the (external!) reach of Light Assaults.

Gal Drops ladies and gentlemen. Gal Drops.

Eh, I wouldn't raise them out of Light Assault reach (since that is the class my entire Outfit is suppose to be based around...), but I wouldn't be opposed to crenelating the balconies to make it more difficult.
This would also serve to make them better fortifications for Infantry to defend from, giving them slightly more protection from vehicle attacks as well as small arms.

Admittedly though man, I don't know how much of your redesigns will be immediately usable...
...I focused on towers because they already meet a large number of your criteria and are implemented like a keep for most outposts anyways.

It'd be fairly easy to replace them with a more fortified design, then erect a few walls around the base perimeter.

A lot of your stuff, while practical and awesome, will require a large amount of terrain and base-layout restructuring in order to work.
They'd be much better for designing Continents around instead of plunking them down on the pre-existing geography.

While this would provide FAR better defensive game-play, we have to realise that this will still leave them with three Continents in need of overhaul.

As such, I feel we should probably focus on more immediate means of strengthening bases...

...Namely, replacing those deathtrap sardine cans that are small spawn buildings!

Let's face it, they are probably the worst offenders when it comes to camping, offering no real protection against enemy forces while simultaneously being more of a hindrance to defense then an asset.

A couple of days ago, an idea thread on "fortifications" got me thinking about Platoon Leaders having access to deployable Spawn Buildings...

Now the viability of such a concept is debatable, but it did lead me to a small spawn building design that would be a VAST improvement over the current boxes.

It would be a mushroom-shaped structure, a squat tower from which the base can be defended from.

The trunk of the building itself has no entrances, just a set of two spawn tubes, equipment terminals, and a shielded elevator for going to and from the second floor.
The second floor itself would be an octangular arrangement of bastions and machicolations, roofed in such a way that only the outermost lips of the bastions would be open to overhead bombardment.
This would allow the spawn building itself to be used as a defensive hard-point as well as providing defenders four potential sheltered exits down through the machicolations...

...The only downside is that Light Assaults will be the only ones able to get back INTO the spawn after dropping, but this could be partially alleviated by external equipment terminals...

Thoughts?

[Figment]

If your outfit is completely based around LA (which unfortunately is not really possible), you'd think airborne aircraft attacks would be extra suited for your group.


Even the PS1 strategy of Mosquito bailing should be easily applicable to a group of LAs. But it'd be more rare and that'd be the whole point.


Hell, maybe the long distance glide jetpack may one day be useful then. But variation is good in general.

The main reason for wanting other spawn design is the 2 exit shack. I'm first looking at which buildings are already present and seeing if I can rework them into either the underground system or convert one of the bigger buildings.

As for calling down a building, could be something for the future, though I'd only see that as a viable solution in the distant game and probably mostly for bigger outfits/groups. So that'd be an expansion, rather than a solution. They do want to get to the point where players can deploy buildings on previously empty continents though.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Figment

If your outfit is completely based around LA (which unfortunately is not really possible), you'd think airborne aircraft attacks would be extra suited for your group.

Oh yeah, our Outfit leader keeps spouting on and on about how we are a "Light Assaults drops out of Galaxies" Outfit...

...Despite my warnings that such a tactic will be of limited use... and how we barely have enough active players on to half fill a Galaxy...

Originally Posted by Figment

Even the PS1 strategy of Mosquito bailing should be easily applicable to a group of LAs. But it'd be more rare and that'd be the whole point.

Oh man, one of the most epic things I've pulled off in this game is bailing from a Mosquito diving at a fully manned Tech Plant roof, only to jet-pack to safety and plant a spawn beacon on one of the "Horns".

Originally Posted by Figment

Hell, maybe the long distance glide jetpack may one day be useful then. But variation is good in general.

Yeah, we're one of the few Outfits who'd get use out of it...

...But I still prefer the flexibility of the standard model.

Originally Posted by Figment

The main reason for wanting other spawn design is the 2 exit shack. I'm first looking at which buildings are already present and seeing if I can rework them into either the underground system or convert one of the bigger buildings.

Of course, but there are a large number of issues with your method.

The biggest ones being the need to rework the base for an underground system or accommodate a larger spawn building.

The two-door spawn shack is one of the smallest buildings in game, only the two door huts used for teleporter exits in Bio-labs are smaller...

Thus, using a larger building would require extensive reworking of the base's layout and terrain, essentially recreating it from scratch.

While this would be nice, chances are SOE executives aren't going to see this process as "cost effective", at least not in the immedeant future.

My thinking with these "Alamo Mushrooms" is that they'd have the same sized footprint as the shacks, but provide a defensive hard-point from which a last ditch effort can be made to repel attackers.

Would they make every outpost easier to defend?
Hopefully...

Would they be better then what we have now?
HELLS YES!

Originally Posted by Figment

As for calling down a building, could be something for the future, though I'd only see that as a viable solution in the distant game and probably mostly for bigger outfits/groups. So that'd be an expansion, rather than a solution. They do want to get to the point where players can deploy buildings on previously empty continents though.

Oh certainly!
I just figure a practical small scale spawn building is a practical small scale spawn building... even if it does look like it can be dropped from orbit.

[Figment]

Well the thing is, every base has ample space underneath the terrain, so really, it's mostly about digging some holes and ensuring the heights match up with standard blocks and then having 100% freedom.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Figment

Well the thing is, every base has ample space underneath the terrain, so really, it's mostly about digging some holes and ensuring the heights match up with standard blocks and then having 100% freedom.

That's still altering the maps geography man...
If you were building the Continent from the ground up, you'd already be doing this as you decide where bases are going to go.

...But when you are talking redoing two dozen bases per map, that's a rather big investment of time and resources.

You have to realise that the "ground" in Planetside 2 isn't a solid object, it's actually a two-dimensional sheet that is raised and lowered in places in order to give it a general feel of terrain.
When you "make a tunnel", you're actually indenting a trench into the sheet, then covering it over with an object made to look like the ground.
If you've ever worked with buildings in a 3D environment like Second Life, then you'd have an appreciation for how tedious a task this can be with a single area of a few hundred square meters, let alone 24 times over.

Long story short, "burying" things in Planetside 2 is a long and arduous process, one that is infeasible as a short term solution to indefensible bases.

Would I like to see more tunnels?
Yes, but I understand that it would take awhile, so I'd rather have a stopgap that involves the rather simple process of trading one building for another in the meantime.

[Figment]

Changing the geography isn't a big deal, talked to Arclegger at Gamescom and he said it was a very forgiving engine and he could change terrain with ease. Big thing was that a change in terrain required art brushes by an artist as all textures are manually applied with four brushes.

If you change any building, you'll have to anyway. Besides, it's not just the spawn box itself that's bad, it's the location at the edge of a facility too.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Figment

Changing the geography isn't a big deal, talked to Arclegger at Gamescom and he said it was a very forgiving engine and he could change terrain with ease. Big thing was that a change in terrain required art brushes by an artist as all textures are manually applied with four brushes.

Yes, changing the terrain isn't comparatively hard, but integrating building assets into it is a whole 'nother story.

Believe me Figment, I come from a Second Life Military background, where every in-game base has to be built using the in-game modeling tools.

An overhaul like this could take weeks, and that's just for ONE base!

Originally Posted by Figment

If you change any building, you'll have to anyway. Besides, it's not just the spawn box itself that's bad, it's the location at the edge of a facility too.

Uh... no actually...
The Buildings are modular assets, much like the bits and pieces you have to work with in a console game's map editor...
My "Alamo Mushrooms" would have a "footprint" that would fit in the same area that the current "spawn boxes" sit, requiring very little if ANY modifications to the existing layout to work.

And the existing "spawn boxes" are horrible, the only things they currently do is give you a safe place to load-in and use an equipment terminal.
Hell, we had to beg for a second exit on some of them!

It's not just because they are placed as far away from the objective as possible, though that IS a big part of it, there is also the fact that the only protection they give to defenders are shielded doors...

There is a reason why I keep calling this design the "Alamo Mushroom", even if the defenders are pushed back to their spawn, they'll still have a means with which to launch a counter attack.
If a tank were to roll up on it, then Heavy Assaults could go out on the bastions to fire rockets at it, while other classes could drop down on the opposite side out of Line of Sight.
The Mushroom shape of the building itself provides an umbrella against aerial bombardment!

It won't be perfect, but it will give us something while we wait for the developers to do more in-depth overhauls.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

Yes, changing the terrain isn't comparatively hard, but integrating building assets into it is a whole 'nother story.

Believe me Figment, I come from a Second Life Military background, where every in-game base has to be built using the in-game modeling tools.

An overhaul like this could take weeks, and that's just for ONE base!

Yeah, but that's why they're better off designing the buildings NOW, then first creating more continents that will need to be overhauled one by one. :/ IT's doing the work twice and is going to cost a lot more time.

Uh... no actually...
The Buildings are modular assets, much like the bits and pieces you have to work with in a console game's map editor...
My "Alamo Mushrooms" would have a "footprint" that would fit in the same area that the current "spawn boxes" sit, requiring very little if ANY modifications to the existing layout to work.

I know, I wasn't saying it wouldn't fit there, I was saying it wouldn't work as well there (they'd have to move it anyway, which would cause a lot of reworking).

So far it seems base redesigns take a few days at least.

It won't be perfect, but it will give us something while we wait for the developers to do more in-depth overhauls.

I understand the concept, could work as a stand in. Problem is as with anything else, nothing is as permanent as temporary. Good chance they'll call it a day after that as resources are shifted by managers. :/ They'd first have to dedicate themselves to that redesign process really.

Plus, you'll get the whole argument with the status quo crowds again...