What Happened To The Bases...

[TerranRoughneck]

Anyone who feels like Zurvan, as shown in the screenshots in the OP, is too open or would be too easy to attack really should take a closer look. There are thee factors that make this base very defensible.

First: There two good sized walls with towers at each end protecting the main facility from two of the more open approaches.

Second: The walls and towers have 2 levels of turrents on them, Anti-vehicle on top and anti-infantry on the bottom(I At least that's how I recall it from TB's streams with Higby)

Third: Yes, the far side of the base is open but terrain has clearly been used to create natural bottlenecks. Rock formations stand in the way of pretty much all the roads leading into main facility.

It's not as easy as it looks at first glance; it's just going to take a bit more creative of a defense than that of a castle-type base. You put a platoon of guys on the walls manning the turrets with a healthy mix of snipers, AT and AA on top, some tanks/mines/AT turrets just inside the natural bottle necks on the (camera)north/north-east approaches and any ground assault will have a hard time getting through.

Of course this all depends on how well each faction is communicating and organizing. Having good commanders to over see this kind of stuff will be key, and more important than the base layout it self in most cases. The faction that works together, will win together. Mostly.

Ultimately though, the bases are going to be varied in terms of lay-out, amount of walls/buildings/natural barriers and just the pure difficulty of attacking/ease of defense. They've said it at least a few times and I feel like I've heard it quite a bit more than that. This is a good thing in my opinion. Variety is important to keep the game play fresh and those who like castle sieges can do that, those who prefer more open field combat can do that too.

Me? I'll be in a Mosquito, so much of this is null

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Originally Posted by Littleman

It was cool in concept, like a mobile land base, but if they're tied to specific hexes... eh...

I wouldn't be surprised if the concept of flying towers was axed. We have Galaxies and Sunderers anyway.

MOBILE HOMES! IN SPAAAAAAAACE


Moving on... Yeah, I doubt that concept lasts long. I don't necessarily oppose or support it. It's just weird.

[Minigun]

i'm not sure if you guys remember the Indar map layout but i think each faction had 2 or 3 bases near their WG so to be honest with you i think base captures will be far and few and if they are taken it won't be long til they are resecured. Not to mention you will never be able to throw another faction off the continent because more troops will be concentrated into that area (not to mention the other faction pushing on their relieved defenses). so my thoughts are that there will be a constant deadlock in the "no-mans land" located between opposing factions bases.

[Sephirex]

Originally Posted by TerranRoughneck

snip

Great post! Fact is they're really trying to make the battles into something outside just driving to a base and laying siege.

I wouldn't expect to be too safe in your mosquito though.

[DrifterBG]

I just want to say that a lot of people here seems to have a Planetside 1 mentality. EVERYTHING. IS. CAPTURABLE.

Do you want to be stuck inside a 6 hours base battle, while a bunch of other people capture all your terrotories/outposts/towers and gains your resources? Fighting will not be in just the bases, they will be in the fields, and on the hills, and the towers that are now huge.

Walled in bases are all fine and cool, but they may make gameplay stale and long, where people won't bother fighting in them, since they aren't worth the time/reward.

Real planetside veterans, and real defenders will be able to have just as entertaining a fight with or without walls.

NOTE: I'm not saying I don't want walls, I'm just pointing out that the frame of mind of a lot of people seems to be stuck in a gamestyle that doesn't reflect the way this game will be done.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Anybody coming here with a PS1 mentality is probably because 90% of the people here play/played PS1 and liked it (more or less). Therefore, the logical follow up, is they lean towards wanting more of that. Them wanting the "old ways" is just as legitimate as you wanting "new ways". And people who liked a certain thing are generally just as "right" as somebody who doesn't like a certain thing.

[DrifterBG]

I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm saying their thought patterns may be a little... narrow... compared to the scale and changes that PS2 will bring.

I've played Planetside since launch, and I know how Planetside is like as well as most people here... the thing that I found is base sieges became stale and kind of boring.

I loved the dynamic nature of mid-field fights with having to actually look behind you for flanking tanks/aircraft, where I didn't have an enemy ducking in and out of base walls, and where there was an actual fight going on.

Some people love the "cozy" and "secure" nature of walled bases. They'll just make things easier as they cram a large number of their 666 in a nice sardine can to accept the precision guided whoopass from my aircraft.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

Anybody coming here with a PS1 mentality is probably because 90% of the people here play/played PS1 and liked it (more or less). Therefore, the logical follow up, is they lean towards wanting more of that. Them wanting the "old ways" is just as legitimate as you wanting "new ways". And people who liked a certain thing are generally just as "right" as somebody who doesn't like a certain thing.

That's all well and good, but there really needs to be more open-mindedness. This thread is a great example.
People want more walls.
The rocky hills act as walls.
But they don't look like wallls.
Doesn't matter what they look like, they are barriers, i.e. walls.
etc. etc.

TerranRoughneck laid it out nicely just now. They already have what they are complaining about. They just are unable or unwilling to see it.

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by TerranRoughneck

Me? I'll be in a Mosquito, so much of this is null

If by in a Mosquito you mean the burning wreckage of one, then I agree

[Hamma]

The bases have gone through many iterations since last year. The second picture is one I took in May and that base likely is still in. Another thing to keep in mind is every base is different now because they are all laid out differently based on the surrounding terrain.

Also the tower we saw in the Fan Faire video isn't in the game like that anymore either, it's now the core for more badass towers.

[QuantumMechanic]

Originally Posted by Littleman

Coincidentally, I think all of the access points are to further discourage the possibility of the defense getting locked into their base once the offense pushes into the courtyard. Likewise however, it makes defense harder. Both sides will need to fight like they're on the offense in PS2, turning it into a game of whom can push against whom harder.

(speculation) I agree this is what base battles in PS2 are going to be like. Instead of one faction defending against an attacking faction, there is going to be waves of people toggling control points back and forth repeatedly. Basically just like the "domination" style match type you find in modern FPS games (where far more time is spent on capturing rather than defending).

What I'm curious about now is, what will it take to end a base battle? These tides can flow back and forth endlessly. And there's no end of match countdown timer to determine the final victor.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

(speculation) I agree this is what base battles in PS2 are going to be like. Instead of one faction defending against an attacking faction, there is going to be waves of people toggling control points back and forth repeatedly. Basically just like the "domination" style match type you find in modern FPS games (where far more time is spent on capturing rather than defending).

What I'm curious about now is, what will it take to end a base battle? These tides can flow back and forth endlessly. And there's no end of match countdown timer to determine the final victor.

At a guess, when the "offense" has no adjacent hexes to the base and their forces are nearly if not wiped out in the base proper OR if the base is completely controlled and the offense pushes the former owners away and giving themselves a wall of hexes as a buffer zone. Basically, this will naturally happen when the base finally goes uncontested

As I said in another post, 30 minute hacks are a nuisance, but are more than ample time to handle if those invading forces are cut off from reinforcements. Keeping territory between your base and the enemy is the key. I feel base battles will just turn into merry-go-rounds until one side gets smart and surrounds the base with friendly hexes. The battle around the base is probably even more critical to victory than the battle within the base limits assuming even numbers and roughly equally organized zergs. And that to me, sounds pretty freakin' cool.

With presumably 30 second capture times on bunkers neighbored by enough friendly hexes, there's room for spec ops/commando teams yet, they'll just be sticking closer to the battlefront and being the heroes that made the difference this time.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Thanks Hamma! Appreciate the extra info. As I already mentioned... Bases have kind of a been a black hole of information

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

Anybody coming here with a PS1 mentality is probably because 90% of the people here play/played PS1 and liked it (more or less). Therefore, the logical follow up, is they lean towards wanting more of that. Them wanting the "old ways" is just as legitimate as you wanting "new ways". And people who liked a certain thing are generally just as "right" as somebody who doesn't like a certain thing.

I played PS1 for years and I really like the new bases. They look better. They feel less like a "genericmilitarybase.mod" model and more like actual facilities. Having larger courtyards (or none at all) will put more emphasis on player created defense, such as mines, remote detonated traps and ambushes and vehicle lines rather than just a wall to shoot from is more like a real war.

...and that's awesome.

[Klockan]

In an FPS the best defense isn't walls in every direction, the best defense is quickly respawning soldiers in defensive positions. Vehicles don't stand a chance against infantry in close quarters and Zurvan is no exception. Infantry on the ground is easily picked off by infantry on the walls, doesn't matter if they are inside the compound or outside. I'd say that to take Zurvan in an actual battle you need twice the number of soldiers of the opposition if you zerg it. Remember that at E3 all 3 factions fought at the same location, defending against 2 at the same time is hard. Then each faction also had a nearby spawn location which could spawn all sorts of vehicles, normally you would spawn twice as far away and without all vehicles available.

Edit: Even in the E3 demo the vehicles didn't even get close to the capturable locations, they got to the courtyard but from there on it gets really vehicle unfriendly with tons of obstacles and stairs. If you look at this you see that the courtyard buildings acts as a wall that you can hide behind while the attackers will have to cross that wide open space where they will easily get picked off unless they use something like a sunderer to transport the infantry. Tanks are no use in the urban environment after the open field and infantry wont survive the open field.
Then all capturable locations lies within infantry friendly terrain, one is even impossible to get to with vehicles. So I don't see how this don't provide a huge defender advantage.