Concerned about facility level design - Page 2

Kipper · 2012-03-12, 08:56 AM

My impression so far is that PS2 bases will all be different, in the video - we saw one of them, and we didn't really see much of that. I expect different facilities - even facilities of the same 'type' might have different layouts. One might be half buried in a mountain, one might be behind high walls, one might have tunnel access, etc.

I also got the impression that it won't be a case of doing everything the same way either - brute force to take the shields down might give the defenders time to rally and prepare, a small squad infiltration to take them down might lead to a more 'surprise' attack, and diversionary 'open field' combat to draw defensive units away from the real objective etc all sound possible.

I think we should wait to see/hear more about base capture mechanics and specifics.

Knocky · 2012-03-12, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Largely because its a game about taking territory. The bases need to be able to be taken. If you made it so the attackers needed 3 for every 1 defender, nothing would ever get taken. It'd be like one of those 24/7 2fort instant respawn servers. Nearly impossible to get anything accomplished because the defense is too strong.

Plus the RL offenses advantage of being able to blow holes in stuff, or just level the place if its too much effort, is nonexistent.

So, why would you design it that way? For gameplay, of course.

MOST territory is controlled by small/large outposts. There are few massive complexes on the map.

Personally I am glad to see that apparently the massive bases are designed to force tanks to stay out. We will have to see how well a plane can do inside the barriers. And yeah....for the most part defenders will always have the advantage as long as they can spawn inside the area they are defending. If they can't spawn there...then they are screwed since we will have the outside secure.

Pozidriv · 2012-03-12, 09:05 AM

The thing about this thread that brings a smile to my face is how opposite this discussion is compared to Mordor (UK). Most of Mordor despise the map "Metro" in BF3, because it's a massive chokepoint full of RPG / grenade and USAS frags spam and yet here we have the opposite

.

Do people really want indoor fighting to devolve into a 60+ player spam fest of screen shaking gobbledigook? The added verticality that was apparent in the GDC videos look extremely promising.

kadrin · 2012-03-12, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Largely because its a game about taking territory. The bases need to be able to be taken. If you made it so the attackers needed 3 for every 1 defender, nothing would ever get taken. It'd be like one of those 24/7 2fort instant respawn servers. Nearly impossible to get anything accomplished because the defense is too strong.

Plus the RL offenses advantage of being able to blow holes in stuff, or just level the place if its too much effort, is nonexistent.

So, why would you design it that way? For gameplay, of course.

Hopefully I didn't come off as advocating ridiculous bases, I was just citing how this works in reality with the need for 3-1 odds and such, I completely understand the need for balance, being able to actually capture a base and progress rather than get stalemates all over.

But base defenses still need to be at least somewhat extensive, make a decent fight out of them, it's not fun if they're completely impregnable but it's also not fun if they're just walks in the park.

You also bring up an excellent point about not being able to just blow holes or level places, but looking at the map and how everything is currently connected, it seems you can also cutoff sections. This seems to suggest that areas that aren't connected will have less resources or energy or whatever they're implementing, which would be absolutely fantastic for base assaults. Base too hard to take? Encircle it, cut it off from the supply lines, maybe now they can't get MAXs or tanks from the base.

Graywolves · 2012-03-12, 01:05 PM

A base that can't be defended for more than 10 minutes when you're heavily outpopped means possibly an entire empire of players not having fun.

Skitrel · 2012-03-12, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Nick

As you all know, in Planetside 1, fighting facilities were a massive part of the game. I really appreciate all the work that is going into Planetside 2 by SOE to make the game more spread out and fun for everyone. However, I'm a bit concerned from the video footage and statements made by developers on Planetside 2 facilities.

In Planetside 1, you could easily hold a base against greater odds using good tactics and strategy. However, from what we've seen of Planetside 2, it seems like the base is more spread out and open. There's no more hellish chokepoints where back and forth "cluster" battles happen. This eliminates many opportunities to hold ground, and I'm afraid that sheer numbers will be more important than before. Yes, there are choke points. However, there are many ways to easily circumvent them (like walking around the one building instead of funneling through like when Higby got TK'ed).

Obviously, some of the stuff we've seen is really nice out of facilities, but please bring back the underground corridors and narrow hallways below the bases and courtyards in addition to what is already in place.

The control console is much too exposed, despite there being shield generators. I realize this is an AMP Station but I hope we get to see these underground and more of a "last stand" area like in Planetside 1. Speaking of the generators, that artificial shield generator mechanic seems kind of stupid. Oh sorry, your 600 man army can't get in this room because there's a door with a shield blocking it. Lame.

Please no "wait for Beta" routine either, by then most of the design decisions are set in stone. It's in alpha and we've seen the game, so being negative at this point will mean more positive later on (and fun factor).

This would be a poor decision on part of the devs. People today don't really enjoy a clusterfuck, and that's what chokepoints are. Op Metro springs to mind, the most controversial map in BF3. The main reason it's played is because of the extreme speed you can boost your stats on it. While some people enjoy a clusterfuck to others it's incredibly boring and repetitive. It's always the same.

Kipper · 2012-03-12, 01:14 PM

Defenders should always have an advantage over attackers - the fight is on THEIR ground, they have walls and time to prep - and spawn tubes right inside their facility. Attackers should always expect a hard, but not impossible fight to get to them.

Attackers will be able to bring their galaxies along to spawn reinforcements which means that defenders won't stop the onslaught unless they sally out, or call in their own reinforcements to take out these positions - thus if they have to leave the base to take out the spawns, they'll be leaving gaps... (or if its reinforcements, they'll be leaving gaps elsewhere).

It's (I hope) going to be a massive game of FPS chess where a battle for a facility isn't just a battle for a facility that's happening in isolation, its affecting the rest of the world. How to stop the attack? Counter attack the attackers either at your base or at one of theirs. How to improve your attack chances? Feint an attack on a less important outpost and try to split the enemy. So many options...

**Higby** · 2012-03-12, 02:18 PM

The level design shown at GDC, specifically the amp station isn't close to final.

1) the capture mechanic shown is nothing like the final capture mechanic. There won't be a single capture terminal, there will be a more distributed gameplay where each team has to attack and hold control nodes to maintain influence on the facility. We didn't have any of that stuff on display at GDC, but you'll get to play it in beta and we'll be adjusting based on feedback there.

2) the layout itself will be adjusted quite a bit to support the capture points on the map and further adjusted based on your feedback and metrics gathered during beta.

Aurmanite · 2012-03-12, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Higby

The level design shown at GDC, specifically the amp station isn't close to final.

1) the capture mechanic shown is nothing like the final capture mechanic. There won't be a single capture terminal, there will be a more distributed gameplay where each team has to attack and hold control nodes to maintain influence on the facility. We didn't have any of that stuff on display at GDC, but you'll get to play it in beta and we'll be adjusting based on feedback there.

2) the layout itself will be adjusted quite a bit to support the capture points on the map and further adjusted based on your feedback and metrics gathered during beta.

Having some forum postage for lunch?

From the tiny amount we've seen, the facilities look fantastic. They look like they have been designed by people who make shooters, something that was absent from the original.

There are several spots I noticed when I watched you playing that made me think "aah yeah, I know exactly how I'm going to go about killing people in that area."

ShowNoMercy · 2012-03-12, 02:53 PM

A couple points guys,

I believe the only base we saw them fighting in was an amp station. Even in PS1 amp stations were GOD AWFUL for defending. I would be interested to see how an interlink facility or dropship center look considering that they were stronghold bases in PS1.

Bases with strong choke points require less coordination on the part of defenders. If in an interlink for instance, the BD gets breached. Unless the attackers are coordinated, once in the BD the attackers spread out. A portion feel a need to attack the tubes, some the CC, and some the GEN. This gives defenders an opportunity to patch the breach and clean out ones that go through.

An amp station is much harder to defend, but with coordinated pushes, defenders can push up and shore up defenses in the CC. The same argument is applicable for the gen in bio labs. These facilities are much harder to defend but not impossible. Besides, if all bases were equally difficult to take, the offensive line would move in a uniform fashion and fun Bastogne situations would never come about.

So while the concern may be that "no choke points remove defense strategy", I would argue "not necessarily" or "not the case". We don't know what all the base layouts will be and there will be secondary targets which do not appear to be uniform in layout like towers currently are. Finally, even if there are less effective choke points or more of them present it will just add more depth to strategy and opportunity to flank people IMO.

UnknownDT · 2012-03-12, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Higby

The level design shown at GDC, specifically the amp station isn't close to final.

1) the capture mechanic shown is nothing like the final capture mechanic. There won't be a single capture terminal, there will be a more distributed gameplay where each team has to attack and hold control nodes to maintain influence on the facility. We didn't have any of that stuff on display at GDC, but you'll get to play it in beta and we'll be adjusting based on feedback there.

2) the layout itself will be adjusted quite a bit to support the capture points on the map and further adjusted based on your feedback and metrics gathered during beta.

Just you typing the word beta is exciting. lmao

kaffis · 2012-03-12, 03:20 PM

I loved the variety and openness on display.

I liked that there were lots of interesting cover points for both offense and defense that looked like they belonged where they were and served some purpose instead of in a storage room and were only left strewn about in a gross display of poor base security (giving all the invading forces cover!).

I liked how there were sections that struck a balance between the openness of a courtyard (making light assault able to reach interesting vantage/cover points, and introducing verticality into the mix, along with upper story balconies or windows to defend from) and the interior of a base (with spaces and obstacles tight enough to preclude vehicle participation).

It looked like a very exciting fight, and one that would allow for lots of flanking and attempting to cover broad areas rather than zeroing your crosshair in at head/chest level on the choke point.

The infantry fighting got me 30 times more excited than the vehicle and air fighting.

Raymac · 2012-03-12, 04:03 PM

The little bit we've seen so far, (and it has only been a little bit) the base design is leaps and bounds better than the Planetside 1 bases. Factor in the tweaking that Higby just mentioned and we are going to have much more fun than the stairwell clusterf*cks that dominated Planetside 1.

Coreldan · 2012-03-12, 04:07 PM

Have to chime in that I think the corridors and staircases (+third person view) were horrible things in PS1.

megamold · 2012-03-12, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Nick

The control console is much too exposed, despite there being shield generators.

where did u see a control console?
i watched the gdc demo 3 times and didnt see one

and in ps1 there were several points in a base to, the gen, vehicle pad, spawn room, control console

sure there will be more but thats a good thing imho
i dont think they would use nonsense capture point ( hallway x or z ) but build the points on base features that would be defendend in any case

whatever they do, i think the bases in general will be much better