Planetside Idea Lab - Page 9

Cryptica · 2004-06-06, 12:36 AM

I think your ideas rock man, I'm very impressed. Unfourtunately from what I've seen of the player body, most of your creative genius would be under-used. I can't imagine any but the most 1337 outfits and squads making effective use of this type of gaming. Everyone has the capability to do it, but virtually no group would make it work. I shudder at the thought of my outfit trying to make a successful firebase.

Hayoo · 2004-06-06, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by TheN00b

I'm not sure that I agree. If you could get a medium-sized, dedicated Outfit together, you could quite feasibly set up a firebase as large as an actual base. It could end up being a problem when an enemy force moves in, only to find that they suddenly have to deal with two massive firebases as well as the vehicle-spawning main base. Pretty impenetratable, dontcha' think?

Not impenetrable at all.

The leaders on the scene have many options and tactics to choose from to employ against a static enemy position.

Orbital Strikes
Artillery fire
Lib bombing
Infiltrator sabotage
Air strafing
Flanking attacks by armor and supporting troops (even if the firebase has the manpower to watch all 360 degrees of apporach)
Hit-and-run strikes

Now add to that spec ops against gens to nullify vehicle production at the base, the supply issues associated with Urban Areas, and the enemy's desire to protect territory to increase their Empire tech level. Population limits would discourage such a waste of manpower on a static position except in extreme cases, such as defending a choke-point, and even that can be bypassed territorially speaking.

However, I wonder. Just what kind of firebase are we talking about? What I mean is, in your scenerio, what was the outfit-leader's purpose for creating the firebase in the first place? Since it can't move and you need a lot of manpower to defend one, in your mind what was the purpose of it? Is it defending the approaches to a base? Is it blocking a road or bridge? Is it an artillery base? Is it an airbase? Is it a supply base?

Hayoo · 2004-06-06, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by Onizuka-GTO

I'm not saying they aren't suitable for Planetside.

It's just that your idea have evolved so much that it's like an entirely different game.
It would make the original so different, that you would never of believed it was the same.

I mean for all intended purposes, if they put al lyour ideas into this game they would have to repackage it and sell it as:
Planetside 2: Combat Evolved

lol. Combat Evolved.

I see what you mean. Yeah, I've been told that plenty of times. But remember what the game was like a year ago? No lattice, no modules, no capitols, no skyguard, no liberator, no cavern locks, no broadcast warpgates? Players would hardly recognize the game. And now we're getting new continents geared toward specific styles of play. The game is already vastly different now than when it first came out. What's a few territory zones and foxholes now? LOL.

Hayoo · 2004-06-08, 02:25 AM

New poll for June is up on Planetside-Idealab. May's poll results are also up.

TheN00b · 2004-06-08, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Hayoo

However, I wonder. Just what kind of firebase are we talking about? What I mean is, in your scenerio, what was the outfit-leader's purpose for creating the firebase in the first place? Since it can't move and you need a lot of manpower to defend one, in your mind what was the purpose of it? Is it defending the approaches to a base? Is it blocking a road or bridge? Is it an artillery base? Is it an airbase? Is it a supply base?

In my example, the Outift Leader was setting up a firebase to be able to effectively pin down any attacking forces. If two Outfits, let's say the Widows and the Wolverines, work seperately to build two firebases, then coordinate their targets, they create a triangle with the base that is practically invulnerable, a 'kill zone'. This could end up being a huge problem in places like Searhus and Ceryshen, where there is often only one approach into a base.

Rbstr · 2004-06-08, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Cryptica

I think your ideas rock man, I'm very impressed. Unfourtunately from what I've seen of the player body, most of your creative genius would be under-used. I can't imagine any but the most 1337 outfits and squads making effective use of this type of gaming. Everyone has the capability to do it, but virtually no group would make it work. I shudder at the thought of my outfit trying to make a successful firebase.

bah, we could do it, we just have to focus, were you there for the BoB raid wer took part in , when we finaly started listenting we did awsome, but then OrreX and his zergfit showed up and our 15 mna platon got stomped (after very hard fighting though, we held out for atleast an hour)

a fire base woiuld be very cool to have and it would give defenders a much bigger chance. Maybee even allowing them to go back and turnthe tides, something that is rarley ever seen

EarlyDawn · 2004-06-08, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by TheN00b

In my example, the Outift Leader was setting up a firebase to be able to effectively pin down any attacking forces. If two Outfits, let's say the Widows and the Wolverines, work seperately to build two firebases, then coordinate their targets, they create a triangle with the base that is practically invulnerable, a 'kill zone'. This could end up being a huge problem in places like Searhus and Ceryshen, where there is often only one approach into a base.

Would add more strategy to the game. Chokepoints exist, the players just have no real ways of exploiting the advantage they provide. I don't see anything wrong with fixing that, and constructable firebases is the perfect way, if you ask me.

TheN00b · 2004-06-08, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by EarlyDawn

Would add more strategy to the game. Chokepoints exist, the players just have no real ways of exploiting the advantage they provide. I don't see anything wrong with fixing that, and constructable firebases is the perfect way, if you ask me.

I suppose you're right. Please note that I am playing the devil's advocate: If everyone loves Hayoo's ideas to the extreme, then no potential flaws will be found.

Hayoo · 2004-06-08, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by TheN00b

In my example, the Outift Leader was setting up a firebase to be able to effectively pin down any attacking forces. If two Outfits, let's say the Widows and the Wolverines, work seperately to build two firebases, then coordinate their targets, they create a triangle with the base that is practically invulnerable, a 'kill zone'. This could end up being a huge problem in places like Searhus and Ceryshen, where there is often only one approach into a base.

I'm guessing you're talking about an artillery firebase then. Well, since I haven't even posted the range or damage capabilities of the emplacements yet, I have the feeling we don't have the same image of a firebase in our heads.

Are you using the Flail for your example (high damage, high splash, insane range)? Even two outfits coordinating fire with Flails can create a triangle that is practically 'invulnerable,' correct? Except that we know there are many many ways to take out Flails (which would be the strongest form of artillery in the game), so why would emplacements suddenly pose a problem if they have less range and damage and suffer more mobility and placement restrictions? Let me explain.

For one thing, emplacements and towed equipment can't be deployed on roads, bridges, within a base's walls, or in front of doors, or they deconstruct.

Second, a few weeks ago I stipulated that the heavy weapons emplacements (artillery, AA, AV, etc) had to be created by the CE vehicle, which can only be procured from a base.

Third, to be effective, an artillery firebase would need at least 3 artillery pieces with open lanes of fire to their target (no trees, towers, or mountains in the way).

Then, because the artillery is so vulnerable to everything else you'd need various other AV and AI emplacements, vehicles or, at the very least, some foot troops to defend them.

Also there's the artillery range to consider. We're not talking the Flail here. Emplacement artillery range is a lot less, maybe 350-450m. Towed equpiment artillery is slightly better. The biggest towed artillery, 155mm, has the best range at 2/3 Flail range, but it has a slow fire, slow reload. Towed equipment also has far far less armor than a Flail or even an emplacement for that matter.

Also, there's the camp's placement. You mention a killzone within a triangle with a second firebase and a facility, but that's looking inward, what about protection of the triangle points themselves. How many troops do you have watching their back. How many are warding off liberators in the skies above? How many are patrolling the perimeter for infiltrators armed with Orbital Strikes or explosives?

Military history is repleat with such scenarios. A force doesn't walk into a kill zone, you destroy it from the outside in. The mobile attacking force has the ability to strike heavily with less manpower and in more places at once than the static firebases require to defend themselves. The firebases would need to cover their heads and rear against these attacks I mentioned before:

Orbital Strikes
Counter Artillery fire (either from scattered locations or from a single firebase beyond the range of the second enemy base and facility)
Lib bombing
Infiltrator sabotage
Air strafing
Flanking attacks by armor and supporting troops (even if the firebase has the manpower to watch all 360 degrees of apporach)
Hit-and-run strikes
Rear Base Spec Ops to deny heavy vehicle protection
Urban Area Isolation to deny heavy equipment procurement

Even with all the checks and balances above, Cheryshen itself would be the most difficult to find suitable areas to put down a firebase. So I'm not worried at all about areas becoming invulnerable, because they simply can't be.

Hayoo · 2004-06-08, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by TheN00b

I suppose you're right. Please note that I am playing the devil's advocate.

heheh. Yeah, I sensed that.

It's my fault for not posting all the details here and leaving so many questions opened. FeckinOtter and I had an intense debating/discussion session on the OF about the checks and balances for the idea. I forgot I hadn't copied the stuff over to PSU and vice versa.

Here's the link to the thread where it turns to emplacement:

http://psforums.station.sony.com/ps/...d=15054&page=3

It starts there and then goes full steam ahead with a lot of writing and debating. Feckin was also playing devil's advocate but, admitedly, in the interest of lobbying his own ideas on the concept...which weren't bad, but some didn't fit with my design. It was fun and kinda felt like a game of chess.

I'll post a bit of what I said here, as far as equipment details:

10 types of emplacements that Combat Engineers can create:

12mm MG nest
Radar post
Communications post
Medical post
HQ post
NTU storage
Supply post
Landing Tarmac
Lookout post
Ground monitoring post

7 emplacements (in addition to the CE ones) that Field Engeers can create:

20mm x2 AA nest (can't depress gun below certain level)
50mm AV direct fire gun (can't raise gun above certain level)
60mm indirect fire mortar (probably will upgrade to 80mm)
75mm indirect fire cannon
AV direct fire missile (can't raise barrel above certain level)
100mm indirect fire artillery (previously 105mm)
SAM site (single shot clip)

9 Towed equipment (conceptualized so far) for Field Assault cert:

Storage
Radar
Communications
AA direct fire Flak cannons
35mm AV direct fire rapid-fire cannon (to be changed to 25mm)
80mm indirect fire mortar (possibly make larger)
90mm AV and aritllery cannon (direct and indirect fire modes - mimics versitility of 88's)
150mm indirect dire artillery rockets
155mm indirect fire artillery
Towed direct fire SAM (double shot clip)

The redundancy is from a desire for emplacements and towed equipment to have counterparts and options for different types of roles and cert choices. An emplacement would be ideal for one situation, while a towed weapon would be better in another.

- For instance, the 50mm AV cannon emplacement is a direct fire weapon like the Gauss cannons, minus it's instagib properties. The 75mm howitzer is an indirect AoE weapon.
- The towed 90mm AV cannon is more versital with a direct and indirect fire modes. So to have the versitility of a single towed 90mm, troops would have to build both a 50mm and 75mm emplacement.

- The 35mm cannon (actually later changed to 24mm) is the towed counterpart to the machinegun nest, except it's equally lethal against infantry and vehicles.
- The machinegun nest, requiring no reloads, eats up tons of ammo very quickly like the Mini-chain gun. Ammo is placed in the small ammo box from which the guns draw bullets directly. To keep up a steady stream of fire, a teammate must steadily put more rounds into the ammo box.

- Mortars have a sharp arc and are more suited for medium-range indirect shots. They also have a longer firing time than the 75mm but they can fire different types of ammo like HE (low splash, high damage), fragment (low damage, wide splash), and plasma, (medium damage, medium splash).
- The towed 80mm mortar (possibly 120mm) obviously does a bit more damage than it's 60mm emplacement counterpart. Mortars are good for taking out nearby enemy emplacements, due to their high arc landing rounds inside the foxholes. They are also good on a defensive line, suppressing infantry on foot trying to close in on emplacements.

- The SAM missile emplacement has a one shot clip, able to do 25% damage to a reaver. It must be reloaded after every shot, like the phoenix. The actual ammo boxes for SAM missiles will have few rounds, requiring more supply trips.
- The towed SAM missle has a two-shot clip, able to do 35% damage to a reaver with each shot. Unlike the emplacement, however, it has no inherent protection and is as weak as an assult buggy. Still working on lock-on issues, but I've also been leaning toward a longer lock-on time. SAM sites are useful for guarding airspace approaches to vital areas or operations.

Flak cannons don't really require explaining.

The AV missile is comparible to the Firebird or Hellfire rocket, as a direct dumbfire missile that delivers a heavy punch but has longer fire time and smaller clip size. It's job is to give a tank squad pause, but not destroy it. I have suspended designing a towed counterpart because of the 90mm cannon.

- The 100mm artillery emplacement shoots slightly further than a 75mm, does more damage, and has about 1/2 to 2/3 the range of it's towed 155mm counterpart, which is comparible to the vanguard cannon. The 100m does less damage than the 155mm but you can build the pre-fabs in place. Consider them throw-away howitzers meant for local artillery strikes.
- The 155mm must be towed to the area, but does heavier damage and has about 2/3 the range of the Flail.

The towed 150mm rocket artillery fires Reaver-type rockets, but they fire in an arch like artillery shells. Like the Liberator you can switch modes between anti-armor warheads and anti-personnel bomblet warheads, except they do less damage than Lib bombs. This second warhead is meant as a suppression weapon. Range is comparible to the 100mm howitzer. I have removed an emplacement version as I want the towed weapon's counterpart to be later mounted on a vehicle, which will have a longer reload time but more armor protection and increased mobility.

I have pegged the 35mm as an all-purpose towed assault weapon for infantry, although I'll probably bump it down to a 25mm since 35mm chews up everything so quickly. In fact, I've just now made up my mind. Consider every previous mention of the 35mm here to be actually a 25mm cannon as I'd like the 35mm to be mounted on my Common Chassis concept instead. The advantage of the 25mm over the machinegun nest is that the towed counterpart has a 360 degree turret and the 12mm's do not.

EarlyDawn · 2004-06-08, 03:12 PM

For whatever reason, the field engineer emplacements don't interest me so much, probably because I'm a support player, so I'll ask about the standard combat engineer ones.

How does supply with the supply post building work? Zone of Influence based? What's the difference between a HQ and comm post? What added command abilities would commanders get at a comm post or HQ? (assume the game is using both the ZOI and Task Force systems here). Could you get medical equipment from a medical post? Also, I think a "tank bunker" style emplacement for Combat engineers would be cool, empowering vehicles in a stationary defensive roll.

Oh, and BTW, I must stress my support for Combat engineer-deployable "primitive" baracades like the tech-sandbags, slotted, and high walls. They would serve well for when you need to place cover between two emplacements on the edge of a firebase, but don't want to deploy one of the "lockbox" emplacements.

I've also gotta say the more thought I put into it, the more I think there really needs to be a locking system for emplacements. If a well coordinated outfit set up a nice firebase, it would be a shame if a few uninformed empire regulars came over and started mucking with the camp.

Finally... I think this system should get a tie in to the Task Force system. Maybe give individual divisions the power to advertise their base and it's theme (Artillary, Frontline/Anti-Infantry, Frontline/Anti-Armor, Frontline/AA, support, medical, ect) on the map.

Hayoo · 2004-06-08, 04:10 PM

How does supply with the supply post building work? Zone of Influence based?

Originally I had it a deployable locker; with a connection to the supply line you could access your locker in the field. But then I started worrying about all the exploits possible with that. I want players having to worry about carrying the ammo for towed weapon and emplacement weapons with them into the field rather than giving them an instant magic box to use (AMS's aside).

So I have turned the supply post into a very large trunk. CE's can set a post up in the field and then players have to stock it with the desired equipment. They can do this with a fully supplied AMS nearby. If players are serious about longevity in the field, they'll carry as much ammo/supplies as they can, but set up various supply posts so they don't have to go all the way back to a base or tower if their AMS suddenly becomes cut off from the supply line.

What's the difference between a HQ and comm post? What added command abilities would commanders get at a comm post or HQ? (assume the game is using both the ZOI and Task Force systems here).

Yes, these emplacements are intended to work with both concepts.

The HQ post is a CUD structure that, when manned by a commander (there's space for 2), provides enhanced map and command abilities. It cuts down the time to do reveal friendlies or reveal enemies. It allows the placing of special icon-based waypoints. It extends broadcast and command chat range for lower CR (that is, if a ZOI is friendly, a CR1 could concievably reach all Task Force leaders in the whole Zone, whereas before he couldn't reach anyone except by /tells). The post also has space for 2 Comtechs who can provide respawn timer, HART timer, and enemy location info to the commanders or their units.

Remember that chat (potentially bypassed with TS on a small scale) and vital map info, which can't be bypassed, can't reach troops in a zone that doesn't have a link back to a base or secure WG. So if a unit's ZOI gets cut off, they not only can't get heavy equipment through normal means, but they can't see the chats and location of their squad members, platoon members, unit leaders, LLUs, modules, "reveal friendlies", or friendly sensors and mines. This provides a psychological effect on troops who will either panic, attempt to flee, or respawn elsewhere when killed; or pull together and hold out for reinforcements or attempt an orderly withdraw.

The Communications Post provides backup CR broadcast abilities in the event that the ZOI is snatched from under your Empire. It's range doesn't reach as wide as a whole zone, but enough to maintain contact between commanders and troops in the field. Towed communications towers provide the same service but with a much smaller radius, designed to fill in the gaps when in enemy territory. It is possible to maintain contact with a cut off ZOI if it has a Comm Post and a line of other posts or towers linking back to friendly territory. Infiltrators and pilots will do well to destroy these wherever they are found.

The Comm post also has seating for 2 Comtechs for protection and to act as listening posts, trying to determine enemy leader locations, waypoints, or catch parts of their conversations over chat.

Could you get medical equipment from a medical post?

Originally this was to be an aid station with medical terminals. But I don't want medics to become a dying breed either, so I'll probably provide it with medical-equipment only terminals. That way players can get medical supplies if they lose an AMS or it gets cut off from supply. I consider medical applicators to be specialized equipment so if the post gets cut off from supply, I'd only make med juice and medkits available.

I've also considered providing revived troops with an option to revive right there where the adv medic is or be teleported on revive back at an aid station so they're out of harms way and can heal and restock equipment. This will provide more love for medics as players will be willing to wait so that a medic can 'get them the hell out of there' and not ruin their kill to death ratio.

Also, I think a "tank bunker" style emplacement for Combat engineers would be cool, empowering vehicles in a stationary defensive roll.

What I've done is created that shallow U-shaped cover that a vehicle can snug up against for frontal cover. I don't really hold to a 'vehicle docking' feature for emplacements, or to a single structure than covers their front and sides, so I've designed one that a large or small vehicle can sit behind and protected from direct frontal fire. This will promote tactical deployment and flank attacks.

Oh, and BTW, I must stress my support for Combat engineer-deployable "primitive" baracades like the tech-sandbags, slotted, and high walls.

I can agree to that. CE's will also be able to create dragons teeth, belgian gates, and a type of razor wire barricade. These structures, in addition to the sandbags, and slotted wall, would Not be deployable inside a base, on roads/bridges, or in front of doors.

I've also gotta say the more thought I put into it, the more I think there really needs to be a locking system for emplacements. If a well coordinated outfit set up a nice firebase, it would be a shame if a few uninformed empire regulars came over and started mucking with the camp.

To avoid the problem of helpful players being locked out of a firebase by an inconsiderate Field Engineer (it's the same issue with locking an AMS to self or group only), I have allowed an FE to only lock one emplacement at a time. If someone undesireable hops in, he can lock that perticular emplacement and mount it himself or get someone else of his choosing to hop it.

I think this system should get a tie in to the Task Force system. Maybe give individual divisions the power to advertise their base and it's theme (Artillary, Frontline/Anti-Infantry, Frontline/Anti-Armor, Frontline/AA, support, medical, ect) on the map.

Interesting. I think the TF system has the features necessary to do this. The Command Squad or even unit leaders can label the position on the continent map as what it is. I'm also working on special icon-based waypoints/markers that the CS can use to mark positions like HQ posts, supply posts, firebases, etc. for the whole TF's awareness on their support systems and what needs to be protected.

It is also this type of information that enemy Comtechs will be looking for. If they spot an HQ or Communications post waypoint, they can direct infiltrators to assassinate the commanders or send bombers or an artillery barrage to take it out.

Commanders can also use this to set up traps, by placing false waypoints ringed with waiting defenders.

edit: or perhaps even place a bunch of waypoints on one front as a diversion while the real forces attack on a different front.

EarlyDawn · 2004-06-08, 04:31 PM

Wow. I think we need to set a map detailing how to overtake SOE HQ and let you direct all this stuff to be put in. Creates supply lines and everything.

How about put in a equipment terminal at supply posts for as long as it is connected to the supply line.

[Edit: Maybe even have multiple lockers at the supply post and let the owner "label" each one for different types of stuff, like medical equipment, ammunition, ect?

Oh yeah, and a question I meant to ask a while ago... what vehicles can carry towables?]

Hayoo · 2004-06-08, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by EarlyDawn

How about put in a equipment terminal at supply posts for as long as it is connected to the supply line.

Hmm. Well there's so many places to get equipment already if you count in the Zones of Control concepts: AMS, towers, supply depots, bases. I think we'll just restrict the supply post to being storage only.

Maybe even have multiple lockers at the supply post and let the owner "label" each one for different types of stuff, like medical equipment, ammunition, ect?

Whoa. I'd hate to be the one to design the GUI for that one.

If there's just one supply post in the area, then players can simply run up and take a look. If there's more than one, then a unit leader can choose to mark each one on the map with a label or map marker.

Oh yeah, and a question I meant to ask a while ago... what vehicles can carry towables?]

The assault buggies and the Deliverer are capable of towing equipment. I might include the Sunderer, but that depends on what people think.

Towed equipment cannot cross over water. If a deliverer tries to cross water, the vehicle will ride above the waves while the towable will be pulled beneath the surface. Once fully submerged, it will automatically disconnect from the vehicle and deconstruct after a moment.

As a side note, pontoon-bridge building will be part of the CE Vehicle's abilities, with sections created one at a time as the vehicle moves forward. A CE Vehicle can only build as many sections as the player's pontoon limit allows and also how many 'construction-units' (for lack of a better word) he has in his trunk. Two CE's might have to work in shifts to cross something as large as a river on Cyssor.

EarlyDawn · 2004-06-08, 05:45 PM

Harasser too, then? Seems like that would be a nice tow for the smaller stuff.

How does one procure a tow?