What Happened To The Bases... - Page 7

IgloGlass · 2012-07-12, 06:30 AM

I want walls! Mostly because I'll probably play Light Assault and I want to jump over them!

JxP · 2012-07-12, 11:11 AM

I like how the original X-Com game handled base fights. You had all the different functions you could fight around like the labs, hangar, and barracks areas. It didn't server much purpose other than cover, but it really helped immersion!

*edit* I also like walls and sliding doors!

GuyShep · 2012-07-12, 12:08 PM

SgtExo · 2012-07-12, 12:19 PM

^^^^ LOL!

kaffis · 2012-07-12, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

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.

This this this.

Instead of planting mines at the gate, now you have to lay tank traps to funnel traffic how you want to.

Instead of sitting on the walls or a tower to snipe, now you find a cluster of rocks to make into a sniper's nest.

Instead of an almost instantaneous transfer of control of the courtyard when the walls are breached, now there will be constant give and take in the much more open, loosely defined "courtyard" between spaced-out buildings that each have objectives under different empires' control. Tank battles will happen *inside* the new courtyards, instead of outside the base to protect the gates.

And all that is hellaciously exciting.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-12, 01:42 PM

HAha! Elbow room :P

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-12, 02:44 PM

You can have wide hallways and doors, and still be defensible.

What we have now appears to be arena style bases on a contiguous map.

That's the problem.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-12, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

You can have wide hallways and doors, and still be defensible.

What we have now appears to be arena style bases on a contiguous map.

That's the problem.

I would say that the old style of bases were more like arena style maps; walled off with few entrances. The way they are now makes the defense perimeter flow into the surrounding area itself; drawing attention away from hard obstacles and allowing more defensive logistics and tactics. Now it may be advisable to actually have warfare between bases. Set up tanks on a ridge to fire on incoming forces to your facility. Have engineers and infantry lay boomers and set up ambushes among those outlying buildings. Make the attackers use tactics to push in instead of just doing the same old thing to break into that hard shell you see every single time you have to take a base.

In PS1 it was: Take the CY or hold the CY, take the lobby or hold the lobby, take the CC/gen or hold the CC/gen. Things are much more freeform now and that makes for better, more dynamic gameplay.

Raymac · 2012-07-12, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

You can have wide hallways and doors, and still be defensible.

What we have now appears to be arena style bases on a contiguous map.

That's the problem.

Enclosing the bases with walls will be far more "arena" than leaving them more open the the huge wide world. The first picture from the OP would make base assaults literally 1 arena after another.

MrBloodworth · 2012-07-12, 04:56 PM

Arena has nothing to do with walls or not. Its the difference of multiple ways to traverse the map and no choke points.

IE: Quake VS. Omaha Beach.

Raymac · 2012-07-12, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Arena has nothing to do with walls or not. Its the difference of multiple ways to traverse the map and no choke points.

IE: Quake VS. Omaha Beach.

I'm sorry. I don't follow. You do want choke points, or you don't want choke points?
It looks to me like there are plenty of choke points and kill zones in that base.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-12, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Arena has nothing to do with walls or not. Its the difference of multiple ways to traverse the map and no choke points.

IE: Quake VS. Omaha Beach.

There are choke points, they just aren't doors that 20 guys can point their guns at because it's one of only three doors into the base.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-12, 05:41 PM

I support the more open areas. I just wish the actual interiors of the buildings had a little more substance.

Otleaz · 2012-07-12, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

Enclosing the bases with walls will be far more "arena" than leaving them more open the the huge wide world. The first picture from the OP would make base assaults literally 1 arena after another.

I don't think you understand what walled combat is. It doesn't just delay some inevitable deathmatch, it completely changes the pace of the battle.

This is still the case.

Aberdash · 2012-07-12, 06:27 PM

I have the feeling a lot of people here are arguing just for the sake of arguing. We already know some bases will be similar to those in ps1 and others will be open.