IMO, if there are any plans to update base design/layout, bring back alpha walls

SturmovikDrakon · 2013-01-06, 07:52 PM

*they should bring back alpha walls

I know base design has been the subject on the official forums recently but I just thought I'd post comparisons of the alpha assets vs. retail

After watching some of Totalbiscuit's alpha videos it confuses me on why they would have decided to get rid of these assets and put up what we have now.

They were covered up like bunkers and offered greater protection against air and ground fire

Pictures should explain it (right click -> open in new tab for original)

Alpha

Retail

The towers themselves aren't as covered up as I'd like them to be, but at least visually they didn't seem as bloated as they do now and save up space

But I guess the easier job would be to just complete cover up the current walls than overhauling all the bases in the game with the old ones

EVILoHOMER · 2013-01-06, 07:57 PM

And the underslung MCG.

I'm not going to play again until it is in there as the current gun design across the board sucks because for some reason SOE want them all to be the same.

SturmovikDrakon · 2013-01-06, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by EVILoHOMER

And the underslung MCG.

I'm not going to play again until it is in there as the current gun design across the board sucks because for some reason SOE want them all to be the same.

T.Ray is extremely stubborn on that subject

Figment · 2013-01-06, 08:05 PM

I would (objectively) bet:

1. Polygons. Somehow the first used more or the second version did, requiring them to remove bits.
2. Aesthetics. They don't like a bit more boring and practical fixed in place stuff, but wanted every base to look like it was dropped and deployed there from orbit (for lore and future player built bases reasons, I would guess)
3. Possibly they had issues with certain gun heights and angle uniformity. They dropped the underslung MCG for the same reason.

Doesn't mean I'd agree with any of the reasons per se, but I think #2 was their most important reason and that might have actually caused #1.

If I would evaluate Alpha walls for practicality though, the inside facing part of it isn't open, that would mean Light Assaults could hop over freely and couldn't be persued well, plus they could be used against the defenders, as they have significant cover facing the courtyard.

SturmovikDrakon · 2013-01-06, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

I would (objectively) bet:

1. Polygons. Somehow the first used more or the second version did, requiring them to remove bits.
2. Aesthetics. They don't like a bit more boring and practical fixed in place stuff, but wanted every base to look like it was dropped and deployed there from orbit (for lore and future player built bases reasons, I would guess)
3. Possibly they had issues with certain gun heights and angle uniformity. They dropped the underslung MCG for the same reason.

Doesn't mean I'd agree with any of the reasons per se, but I think #2 was their most important reason and that might have actually caused #1.

If I would evaluate Alpha walls for practicality though, the inside facing part of it isn't open, that would mean Light Assaults could hop over freely and couldn't be pursued well, plus they could be used against the defenders, as they have significant cover facing the courtyard.

1. The retail designs seem to be more complex to me though.

2. Aye, that's definitely the lore reason. Walls themselves shouldn't be that open though. And personally I like the practical look

3. Very possible

I guess the part of the walls that are facing the inside of the base could be removed in order not to give the attackers any advantage

Figment · 2013-01-06, 08:50 PM

Pretty much agreed, hence also why I said that #2 could have caused #1: the second version being too complex, too many polygons, where for some reason the aesthetics argument gained more weight than defensibility. Could be they overvalued the defensive abilities under the new aesthetics based on some user scenario too. After all, it has more cover above than a PS1 wall. Much less to the side and they may have not realised the impact of courtyard size on the circumference size and its subsequent impact on defensibility. Especially with LA being around and they probably assumed the jumppads from the tower next to the barracks would sufficiently cut on the travel times.

I'm simply under the impression their use scenarios were highly hypothetical.

Bags · 2013-01-07, 03:19 AM

Where did you get those alpha shots from? I followed PS2's development religiously and I've never seen any of those.

Figment · 2013-01-07, 03:45 AM

Btw, the most important feature of these walls is probably the connections with the keep.

AThreatToYou · 2013-01-07, 03:48 AM

I definitely want these walls over the ones we have now. Give some meaning back to taking the walls... usually that's the final step in taking the courtyard.

In ye olden PS1, I mean.

I also wonder why the rails on many bases have holes in them. I regularly kill folks by shooting through them.. they are not very good for defense.

Stanis · 2013-01-07, 05:06 AM

Those walls are hideous.
I say this from a tactical viewpoint.

Enclosed, inward facing arcs of fire.

Thinking this through - not just light assault but any enemy troops able to secure a single entrance to those walls can now use the Courtyard as a Barbican to massacre the DEFENDERS.

I'll be boring and mention PS1 walls and Courtyards
Ignoring liberators and height, the PS1 walls were plain and unadorned with fortifications on the outer edges only.

This is so that at all times the defenders had the advantage. They could use the walls to defend the base - and should the enemy be on the walls everyone in the Courtyard (which was also mostly empty) or at the main base buildings could fire to the walls.

This gave defenders an advantage - the base 'belonged' to them.

In PS2 I'd like to see the PS1 style walls come back.
I'd like to see them with some physical shielding from overhead bombing runs - but nothing that alters line of fire from CY or base.
I'd like to see the Courtyard declutter of all the crap in it.
I'd like to see more use of shields and shield generators to provide actual barriers to attackers. Exterior wall edges, shielded to 3 stories height.
Light assault can still jump over but they expose themsevles significantly during the travel time.

Walls and buildings shielded vertically with overhead blast shields preventing bombing/air runs.

The walls pictured would make an already bad situation - no ability to defend - worse.

ringring · 2013-01-07, 05:21 AM

It looks like it has the same problems as the current amp to me.

Look at those open spaces you have to cross.

- Make the base smaller, reduce running.
- After the outdoor fight there should be a further phase in doors
- Put the spawns in doors.

Somehow, I think the Amp will never get fixed.

artifice · 2013-01-07, 05:27 AM

A wall around every base and outpost would be interesting. As would bubbles to prevent air.

Archonzero · 2013-01-07, 05:41 AM

In all honesty, every base should have a massive dome (either armored or shielded) over similar to the bio dome, or at least it could be a partial dome. This domed fortification would cover completely up an over the fortified walls, there would be access points into the facility at the wall towers. AS well, there would be dome turret towers that would link to a series of upper level rooms, balconies, an upper level bridgeways.

Using some quick reference imagery, think a combination football stadium + Core Combat cave style enclosed environment.

Using a variety of buildings from the current designs for the inner facility layout of rooms, open an closed hallways, inner ramparts, with capture points of various types. A spawn room that had access routes underground as well as the mainfloor/upper floor access/exit points. This way the spawn room wasn't a roach motel, still allowed the defense force plenty of fighting chance.

This way taking large an major facilities would protect infantry from the majority of vehicle slaughter as well, IT would also promote ESPORT arena style combat with the interior layout being almost completely untouchable by massive air an ground vehicle bombardment.

Here's a crude basic rough idea of what I was thinking. To read/see it better you will have to open it in a separate window.

Vashyo · 2013-01-07, 07:22 AM

I'd like some unique wall styles for each base, just as defensible though. But different.

and those bubble forcefields should also be around like in PS1, maybe make one base control them on the map.

They should also remove the damn jumppads, they move enemy all around the base. -_-

Figment · 2013-01-07, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Stanis

I'll be boring and mention PS1 walls and Courtyards
Ignoring liberators and height, the PS1 walls were plain and unadorned with fortifications on the outer edges only.

To nuanciate, the ballustrade were the same on both in- and outsides of the wall, aside from the large merlons on the outer side. Basically firing cover wise, it was the same for both attackers and defenders. The defenders did have a couple design advantages over the attackers:

1. Merlons to take cover and heal up.
2. "Towers" extending from the walls to the outside only, with turrets on top.
3. Getting to the walls was only possible from within the courtyard.
4. Turrets only usable by defenders.
5. Two CY entry points, one base entry point from outside the walls.
6. Distance to wall from spawns (within keep) is advantageous to the defender due to their centralised access with walkways and small courtyard and thus smallish circumference. The walkways provide extra height advantages for courtyard control.
7. Relatively small courtyard and complete circumference and radius. An attacker usualy can only reach one side of the wall, where defenders can get height advantage everywhere, including over all openings in the wall. This also allows defenders to maintain a good overview on which side of the walls need defending.
8. Turrets can be repaired from a relative protected position at the base of the stairs to the turret.

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 AND #8 have become fastly more "neutral" to become useful for both attackers and defenders:

1. Merlons on both sides.
2. Towers connect centralised to the walls.
3. Walls can be scaled by Light Assaults and not just from inside the courtyard any more, despite the stairs/elevators being on the courtyard side only.
4. Turrets can be hacked by any basic infiltrator and used against the defenders outside the walls.
5. There are walls on Esamir covered by snow, creating additional entry points, NEXT to a third and fourth unshielded courtyard entry point or even tunnels leading under the wall
6. Defenders can only defend one section of wall well and have very poor access to other areas of the wall. The speediest way is a disconnected jump pad. Defenders cannot cut across the center of the base using walkways.
7. Relatively large courtyard and thus big circumference. Due to the holes and jetpacks, one cannot always have a height advantage. It also makes it quite difficult to see what's going on on the other side of the base and respond to that. A situation worsened by a larger (unusable) keep obscuring vision, poor render distances, non-zoomable map, poorly functioning communication channels (/b vs /re) and the amount of other obstructions in the CY (that not just block viewing lines, but also firing lines).
8. Despite of significantly faster (potential) repair rates, turrets cannot be repaired from a relatively unexposed position.

In fact, the only thing that improved *by simply something being present*, is overhead cover.