What Happened To The Bases... - Page 5

Shadowrath · 2012-07-11, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by SnipeGrzywa

Because if in one session (normal, not all nighters or weekend play) if you fight over the whole continent you are either A) steam rolling your enemy or B) being steam rolled. Either case not much fun since you are manuerving more then fighting.

Don't get me wrong, I want Auraxis covered in purple like everyone else

but I also want fun doing it.

Some of the best fights, and therefore memories, are from 6 hr siege battles.

Best explaination I've seen yet.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-11, 04:37 PM

I for one am glad to see PS1 bases go. Hated all those hallways people tried to pack down; shooting the guys in front of them in the back and make in impossible for them to move back into cover. Heaven forbid one of the idiots behind you has a thumper...

I like PS2's more realistic approach to facilities. It means defenders will have to get more inventive and dynamic than just camping doors.

fvdham · 2012-07-11, 04:51 PM

There will be walls of flesh and metal.

BeastBuster · 2012-07-11, 04:53 PM

I think, for me, it depends on the number of big bases per continent. If the number is relatively low, I would much rather the bases be walled in and harder to take. That, and I love the idea of both laying siege to a base and being besieged inside one.

Also, I might be wrong, but it looks like the first base is still big enough to facilitate ground vehicle combat assuming the attackers can push inside.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-11, 05:17 PM

Actually I have only seen very little of the interior of bases. I'd like to know more about what is in place currently. I mean, it's in a few bases here and there, but most the videos are all made in (more or less) the same area. It's hard to tell if what's depicted represents the norm or if it's just "that area".
I don't think every base has to be walled. That's fine. I have noticed the absence of much of an interior to the ones I've seen so far. Like... There not being one. It's just open. You could park a 747 in some of these rooms, and I've not noticed any doors, windows or anything. The whole damn thing is just open air.
But, like I said, I don't know if this represents most bases, or just the one or two I've seen. Seen lots of external shots of bases (LOOK! Big building surrounded by little buildings!) but you can't really tell much from that...

Littleman · 2012-07-11, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

I for one am glad to see PS1 bases go. Hated all those hallways people tried to pack down; shooting the guys in front of them in the back and make in impossible for them to move back into cover. Heaven forbid one of the idiots behind you has a thumper...

I like PS2's more realistic approach to facilities. It means defenders will have to get more inventive and dynamic than just camping doors.

This.

Defenders will have to push like they're on the offense.

Part of PS1's problem was also that once the defense was shafted inside their own base, getting out was a nightmare because every door was camped by a dozen turrets and fliers at least. In PS2, it seems as though if one is camping anything, they're doing it wrong. The match won't end after X amount of time. Maybe the base will change hands, but one's enemies will still keep coming unless they push them away with a superior offense.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-11, 05:37 PM

I do feel that a base invasion should not be over in less than a couple hours, unless the enemy was either absent or caught completely by surprise (say a mass 50 or 60 man gal drop that was able to seize all points quickly before they could organise).

Too much "free flowing" and "fast paced" just makes it CoD/BF online with interconnected bases. I don't mind deathmatchy fast paced necessarily (I play Killzone a lot), but the larger scope of PlanetSide is supposedly catering to the strategic aspects of warfare, too.

To cite the example cited earlier of WWI vs WWII. The battle lines in WWII were more fluid, yes... But individual battles were fought over hours... usually days... sometimes longer. That's a consequence of the nature of larger scale battles. Even ancient sword and spear battles were fought over hours or days.

A FIREFIGHT may be over in minutes... because it's only a handful of people. And in an online game, where nobody cares about dying, they don't mind charging out. But in real life, even a firefight can drag on for a long time, several hours.

If bases are changing hands every few minutes, it reduces the amount of maneuvering play. When hostiles were sieging a base in PS1, you knew it would (probably) take a while for them to get in there and secure it, unless something unusual happened. This provides time to maneuver other forces, even just a gal drop behind enemy lines to attack a base the enemy may consider more important, thus drawing forces away from the first siege.

The length of the fights makes logistics and planning more of a concern (previously involving lots of Lodestars and AMS) in order to maintain the momentum to sieze the base.

I'm not saying it has to be done "the same way". I'm just saying making it TOO fast paced undermines the point of fighting over something in the first place. It can make it equally hard to take or defend a location. For example, the multiple capture points are not necessarily a bad thing, but done wrong it can result in a right merry-go-round as both sides are capturing then re-capturing then re-re-capturing the same points over and over.

Same goes for the bases themselves. If the battles are over TOO soon, then the importance of individual bases is reduced. Well, you're losing this fight, so just pop over here and zerg this other facility, cause you can probably take it in the few minutes it takes for them to get over there, then you can just come back a few minutes after THAT cause they'll have moved on from the first facility and you can take it back (while they take the OTHER one back). Everybody ends up just running in circles more than anything else, with only idiots staying behind to "defend" (i.e. get steamrolled).

Not saying it works this way. This is what the Beta will accomplish finding out. Just saying it COULD work this way.

I know the concept of the game is "perpetual warfare" and "always want someplace to go fight". That's good, I support both concepts. I just suggest, if not careful, it can TOO far the "always fighting everywhere" part and then it renders the conflicts moot (it's video game, so they're already moot, but you know what I mean).

Have to see in order to know how things actually work and are laid out. But, that's my thoughts, anyway...

Originally Posted by Littleman

Part of PS1's problem was also that once the defense was shafted inside their own base, getting out was a nightmare because every door was camped by a dozen turrets and fliers at least.

Downside of riding it out to the bitter end, known as "last stand", usually where the dirtiest fighting takes place. I don't think it's a "bad thing" or "problem". You didn't HAVE to stay in a base interior until the bitter end. Running outside the front door would be suicide, yes, but you could (usually) spawn elsewhere.

Case in point. I liked the last few minutes of the push inside a base (or the last bastion holed up in the gen). That was my favorite part. All the chaos just before that in the courtyard and outside the walls, was not as much fun, I thought.

LtHolmes · 2012-07-11, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Charred

Ugh, the casual in this thread make me sick.
Everyone arguing for not having walls and having an open arena that's not defendable is either stupid or don't understand how war works. When one party sieges a settlement it should be SIGNIFICANTLY harder to take it than defending it because that's how this shit works.

"B-b-but we need to have a unique style to every base and therefore no walls."
That's fucking stupid and you know it. Walls can be placed differently and have another look, making something unique doesn't mean that you have to remove something.

Please take a moment and ponder on how fucking boring everything would be if 10 tanks could come take a base easily because they can roll up to the fucking point and cap it.

I'm all for having 3 easily accessible points outside the base but when it comes down to defending those last ones it has to be TOUGH and HARD. Stop being such codbabbies and battlefags, it's sickening.

So are you saying that we need walls in order for it to be a war? Or that walls are required to defend a position? I am not sure what your logic is. Also anyone that suggests not having walls equals casual players?...

You are also suggesting that it would be boring bc ten tanks would just theoretically roll up and capture a base. Are you suggesting that it would be easy for ten tanks to do this without help? or that we dont have significant means to defend or destroy armor? I am not quite sure. We could just as easily meet them with ten tanks, am I right?

Also are you suggesting that having walls that force a single point entry, cluttered with mines, and meat shields, tight hallways and corridors with doors, strafing with "a" and "d" spamming, clipping so that you cant move forward or retreat is fun?.. some might call that lack of strategizing bc it just becomes a question of which force brings more people to the party. A zerg of sorts.

Why does a last point have to be tough and hard by means of an non player mechanic? (walls). The defenders all ready have access to semi-closed structures, some cases of vertical advantage, spawning in base, vehicle pads, turrets, etc. Ultimately it should come down to the fight of players and their organization that should decide victory or defeat. Having walls that no one fights at besides the doors limits players choices on both sides! why make it a turtle fest? I want to have fun playing a game, and playing in a closed off base becomes a boring frag fest for one side usually.

I have played ps1 since launch and love it! But the base battles left a lot, hell a ton, to be desired. Also, plenty of us have a great deal of fun playing cod or bf3 as well as planetside. You think that all cod and bf3 players have nothing to offer the planetside community? You comments are illogical and more importantly not helpful.. please feel free to prove me wrong.

Littleman · 2012-07-11, 05:59 PM

Eh, reading the conversations, I can see people are obsessing over bases, when towers and bunkers will be more important to capturing bases than they were in PS1. In fact, controlling the adjacent territories is arguably essential to taking bases.

Since adjacent friendly hexes directly have an influence on hack times, a good defense won't just take a base point, they'll also simultaneously attempt to take the enemy territory adjacent to the base, maybe even doing so then backtracking to retake what parts of the base have been lost. If it takes 30 minutes to take a point without any adjacent hexes, the defense can take their sweet time while the interlopers are just being annoying.

On THAT note, any empire that thinks once they lost a base they should prep at another for the next incoming invasion ala PS1 is doing it so horribly wrong they need to be clubbed with a heavy pipe wrench until they forget PS1 ever existed. The reality of adjacent hexes influencing capture timers should encourage empires to clash when ever and where ever to prevent the enemy from having any hexes adjacent to their own base. Fighting in the fields should prove to be a superior defensive strategy to fighting at the base walls (or lack there of.) It's hard to argue against forcing your enemies to fight through your line for 5 minute hacks as opposed to 30 minute hacks.

This kind of scenario sort of played out in PS1 periodically, but only if the terrain offered a natural choke point or the bases were close enough together that it wasn't too far a drive/trek to get back into the fight.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-11, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Littleman

Eh, reading the conversations, I can see people are obsessing over bases, when towers and bunkers will be more important to capturing bases than they were in PS1. In fact, controlling the adjacent territories is arguably essential to taking bases.

This is true. I hadn't considered that. It renders the base battle itself as a less consequential part of the overall conflict. By the time it gets to that point, the defenders are probably already fucked....

That said, I've seen next to NOTHING of the smaller exterior outposts being referred to here. Does anyone know anything much about them or what they are designed like?

Baneblade · 2012-07-11, 06:03 PM

Make walls out of Sunderers.

Littleman · 2012-07-11, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

This is true. I hadn't considered that. It renders the base battle itself as a less consequential part of the overall conflict. By the time it gets to that point, the defenders are probably already fucked....

That said, I've seen next to NOTHING of the smaller exterior outposts being referred to here. Does anyone know anything much about them or what they are designed like?

"Bunkers" will probably be akin to the smaller buildings we saw in the E3/ Higby stream. Just a crappy building in the middle of nowhere to take for the local hexes and may hold spawn points (not too sure.) I believe the structure Higby parked his tank near early on was one such bunker, but it's proximity to the base could suggest otherwise.

Towers, last I heard, had landing struts as of last year, and SOE was very implicitly, but not outright confirming, the possibility that towers can be moved. However, the latest Higby stream showed us what I believe was a tower, and it didn't look so flight capable to me. Mind you, it was also completely different in design.

Sephirex · 2012-07-11, 06:22 PM

From the flyovers I saw, it looks like they're trying to pull fighting away from the bases and aiming for larger battles out in the fields. I saw lots of chokepoint style canyons and bridges. Getting to the base may be the real challenge if teams are smart enough to exploit these.

Planetside 1 spent way too much in narrow hallways for such a large war-game.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-11, 06:30 PM

If this is all true, then I would proclaim it an improvement over the base battles (which aren't really very realistic anyway). Although, the flying tower bit strikes me as odd....

Littleman · 2012-07-11, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

If this is all true, then I would proclaim it an improvement over the base battles (which aren't really very realistic anyway). Although, the flying tower bit strikes me as odd....

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.