Why are base spawn points right in the courtyard?

[Galzus]

I can't imagine how difficult it will be to assault a base when there is a constant zerg emanating right in the center of the courtyard, especially when paired with the low respawn times.

I'm going to miss bases with deeper interiors. Indoor combat was fun, especially with the singular central cap point and a spawn location that made for a better combat flow.

[Timithos]

I remember a seeing list of a dozen or so spawn options including SL hot drops, bunkers, towers, spawn rooms, etc. Spawning will be much more dispersed in PS2. A base has 6 capture points, so you can't effectively hold a base by spawning in one spot. Bases are bigger, more open, and more spread out.

In PS1 you have only 4 spawn options: 1 Base, 1 Tower, 1 AMS or Sanctuary. You could hold a base for hours by zerging out of the spawn room. That wasn't combat flow. That was a big, hairy combat drain clog.

[Galzus]

Originally Posted by Timithos

I remember a seeing list of a dozen or so spawn options including SL hot drops, bunkers, towers, spawn rooms, etc. Spawning will be much more dispersed in PS2. A base has 6 capture points, so you can't effectively hold a base by spawning in one spot. Bases are bigger, more open, and more spread out.

The outer spawn points are equivalent to towers from PS1. The actual base itself still has that one central spawn point which is within 10 seconds of sprinting to the main control points.

The outer control points only account for half, or less, of the total control points. (Zurvan has 3 inside the base and 3 outside, IIRC). Half is all a defence force would need to hold to keep the base.

Originally Posted by Timithos

In PS1 you have only 4 spawn options: 1 Base, 1 Tower, 1 AMS or Sanctuary. You could hold a base for hours by zerging out of the spawn room. That wasn't combat flow. That was a big, hairy combat drain clog.

In PS2, there is no AMS and a Galaxy that attempts to park near a base is going to get obliterated, so there are less spawn points for attackers to utilize.

Imagine trying to take a PS1 base using only a tower and the enemy spawns right into their courtyard.

[Timithos]

Originally Posted by Galzus

Imagine trying to take a PS1 base using only a tower and the enemy spawns right into their courtyard.

Like from their AMS's parked in the courtyard?

Well luckily in PS2 there won't be this one zerg fight at this one key facility on the continent, because there won't be anymore "key" facilities that have to be taken in a fixed order. There'll be 4-5 facilities along an entire front not to mention towers, bunkers and resources to fight over.

[Galzus]

Originally Posted by Timithos

Like from their AMS's parked in the courtyard?

No, from a small building that you can't get in to or destroy. People are going to be spawning from that 10 seconds after they die.

Well luckily in PS2 there won't be this one zerg fight at this one key facility on the continent, because there won't be anymore "key" facilities that have to be taken in a fixed order. There'll be 4-5 facilities along an entire front not to mention towers, bunkers and resources to fight over.

The enemy isn't not going to defend their base.... if you're attacking a base, there will be a zerg against you.

[Timithos]

I'm just saying that the zerg is not going to be as concentrated as it was in PS1. In PS1 you might have just this one key base that needs defending/attacking. It's not going to be like that in PS2. You could have 3-7 major facilities along the frontline spanning the continent. They all need some sort of defending/attacking at the same time - unlike PS1. And all the space in between with towers, bunkers, and resources needs defenders/attackers too. Missions are going to disperse the zerg too. You set up a public mission for a squad of 10 to go to such and such a place, and there go 10 zergling players being pulled out of the "zerg."

It's going to be different. It's not going to be as zerg-friendly as PS1 is.

[Voltar]

attackers can also squad spawn right on top of the cp too so it's all a little zergy.

[Coreldan]

I would lie if I said that I think the base interiors were well designed for the most parts. Don't get me wrong, I'd probably want more and some underground base interiors to the current PS2 bases from what I've seen, but the way it was in PS1 was not good.

[Galzus]

Originally Posted by Timithos

I'm just saying that the zerg is not going to be as concentrated as it was in PS1. In PS1 you might have just this one key base that needs defending/attacking. It's not going to be like that in PS2. You could have 3-7 major facilities along the frontline spanning the continent. They all need some sort of defending/attacking at the same time - unlike PS1. And all the space in between with towers, bunkers, and resources needs defenders/attackers too. Missions are going to disperse the zerg too. You set up a public mission for a squad of 10 to go to such and such a place, and there go 10 zergling players being pulled out of the "zerg."

It's going to be different. It's not going to be as zerg-friendly as PS1 is.

You're not looking at the right scope, here.

This isn't about the bigger picture, it's about one of the occurrences in that bigger picture: assaulting a base and attempting to fight back the enormous spawn rates that spawn directly into the courtyard, on top of you. There will always be a large defense force protecting a base, and they will always be utilizing the very convenient central spawn point that provides very quick routes to key control points.

Originally Posted by Voltar

attackers can also squad spawn right on top of the cp too so it's all a little zergy.

A few guys dropping onto the control points with their very obvious drop pods won't survive long enough with the constant flow of troops coming out of the nearby spawn point.

[Xyntech]

Presumably the soon to be implemented SOI's will prevent enemies from squad spawning directly into a base.

Let's not forget that bases are a lot larger and more open now. Defenders are going to have their work cut out for them as well. You can't just all rush to defend a single control point, because the enemy will usually only need to control a majority of the capture points for a majority of the capture timer (surrounding territory influence aside).

I'd just like to point out that some people are worried about bases being too hard to defend, whole others, as in this thread, are worried about bases being too hard to attack.

I'm not saying wait to get into beta to discuss some of the potential ramifications of what we've seen of the spawn room location, I just ask that everybody keep some perspective and objectivity in the discussion. Frankly we won't know how easy or hard it is to capture a base in PS2 without hands on experience with 500 to 2000 player populated continents.

Personally, I think that attackers and defenders who try to use PS1 siege tactics are going to fall on their ass.

The PS2 defenders who try to camp a few spots like we used to camp choke points in PS1 bases are going to get overrun. However, I think that defenders who are fast to respond and move their focus from one spot to another, while keeping an eye out to defend their spawn point from getting over run, will stand a good chance.

Likewise, attackers who try to park a spawn point as close as possible to the enemy base and then make a mad dash for the capture points will probably be cut down in their tracks time after time. But attackers who make use of coordinated Gal drops in combination with ground pushes will probably be able to overwhelm defenders in ways impossible to do with even the best coordination in PS1.

My biggest concern right now is how viable a smaller force will be in confronting a larger force. I don't mean that 30 people should have an even shot at holding out against 150, or that 10 attackers should be able to easily overwhelm 30 defenders, just that it should be possible for a smaller but well organized and skilled force to at the very least cause a lot of problems for the larger enemy. Stalling an attacking force, or forcing defenders to call in reinforcements.

Right now I am liking the open base designs much more than the terrible spam fest tight corridors of the first game. They look to have a lot more options open to fight in them, and it just looks like a more fun environment to fight in to me. But I fully recognize that there could be some major problems with some of the new systems.

I'm confident that a combination of balance passes and new tactics will succeed in making base fights something amazing in PS2. But it's definitely going to be different than in the original game, one way or another, and copy pasting tactics between the two games is not going to work.

[Death2All]

I think being able to spawn at the forward bunkers inside the base will either make or break the game. Either it's going to do what it's intended, get people in the action faster and keep up a nice steady fight over a base or it's going to make it impossible to defend. Constant streams of enemies constantly pouring into your base. Might turn into, once they have the spawn point they basically win the base sort of gameplay.

[Boomhowser]

Originally Posted by Timithos

It's going to be different. It's not going to be as zerg-friendly as PS1 is.

One of the biggest draws of planetside is the massive scale combat.. its gonna be zerg friendly, to believe otherwise is just wishful thinking

[Marinealver]

Originally Posted by Timithos

In PS1 you have only 4 spawn options: 1 Base, 1 Tower, 1 AMS or Sanctuary. You could hold a base for hours by zerging out of the spawn room. That wasn't combat flow. That was a big, hairy combat drain clog.

There were also 2 more, a Base you binded at the matrix panel (asuming it wasn't the closest base spawn) and an AMS you binded at (asuming that wasn't the closest AMS) back then in order to get around without a vehicle you really had to learn how to "pipe" in and out. Now with every spawn point being avalible it is allot more difrent and instead of a sant it is a warpgate.

[Littleman]

We're thinking of bases in the wrong way again: they're 7 linked hexes with a super structure among a mass of smaller outpost buildings with several control points and a ticket system to determine the victor. As a result, an empire either controls all 7 of those hexes or they don't, and the prize is auraxium. Otherwise for vehicle spawning capabilities, an actual tower will serve, which control anywhere from 3-4 hexes.

Regardless of whom controls those hexes however, it's still simply land to fight over, just as with towers, just as with outposts/bunkers, only it's a lot of land at once. The siege approach to PS1's bases is dead in PS2. The enemy will take points in the base to spawn from, but that does not mean they'll win, since those spawn points are essentially the same as the one's the defense has access to. The only real difference, again, is which flag hangs from the poles. The defense fight no differently from the offense, the defense just has the super structure's spawn room, vehicle terminals and any linked defensive measures like force fields and turrets.

[feuerdog]

We also currently don't know exactly what are options are for starving a base and preventing or limiting a defensive zerg.

Zerging by its very nature will increase spawn delays, and that alone may be enough for a coordinated attack to take advantage of.

There will be spawn camps, there will be zergs, and there will be multiple ways to attack and defend.

I'm not worried.