More dynamic bases & cover

Palerion · 2013-03-16, 12:39 PM

As has been mentioned numerous times before, Planetside 2's bases and fortifications can seem very badly designed at times. I personally have noticed this in the lack of cover, and while I don't know for sure what everybody thinks is wrong with the current bases, I find that the lack of cover is really what makes gameplay seem slightly dry.

I took some time to go back and play battlefield 3 (I know, many people don't like bf3 comparisons) and couldn't help but notice how exciting and frenetic firefights were compared to what I have experienced in planetside 2. Shooting through a train on operation metro, running through to see enemies hiding behind crates and boxes, ducking behind the train while narrowly avoiding their shots, and lobbing a grenade over. Intense hip-fire battles through corridors and around tight obstacles. Ducking behind sandbags with your carbine or AR in a long-range firefight as bullets whiz over your head. Laying waste to a horde of enemies with your LMG squad from a bunker. It is all very exciting, and I would love to experience this same grit and intensity in planetside.

Currently, fighting in bases often feels like fighting around giant boxes. It's not really cover, but just giant pillars. I think the cover needs to be implemented on a smaller, more manageable scale; yes, like battlefield, or any other first person shooter for that matter. More bunkers placed in strong positions. More "sandbags" (or low walls like that, of some sort) scattered around the battlefield. Crates, boxes, small and medium sized cover for infantry to hide behind, all throughout bases. Even more diverse buildings, corridors for dynamic firefights. There really needs to be more cover and dynamic environments to make infantry combat more fun, and more obstacles to get in the way of vehicles.

I think placing more emphasis on reducing the monotonous, open-field style fighting that currently takes place across auraxis would make the game exponentially better. There needs to be more than simply walls, vehicles, and guns in order for interesting, dynamic, and fun battles to take place.

Redshift · 2013-03-16, 01:06 PM

The shear volume of explosives needs to be managed before any sort of small scale cover becomes functional, yes that means nerfing rockets

Badjuju · 2013-03-16, 01:46 PM

Deciding not to create legitimate insides to the large bases was the worst move they made from my perspective. It cut out 1/3 of the fight, a part that I liked the most, and left objectives subject to vehicle camping. (I may have a little PS1 bias but the fights just aren't working out right ATM)

But yes at the very minimum they need to work on cover, not only on the bases but in the environment.

Pretty much everyone I know that quit did so because they preferred infantry, and PS2 just couldn't deliver infantry combat that was up to par. They loved the scale and concept but good infantry combat, the games core, just wasn't there yet.

Now, for the love of god, start putting in patches of trees. Not one tree in the middle of a field. It can cover armor, infantry movement, and even air vehicles. Then I agree, take a strong look at cover around base. Maybe even attach more of the buildings so every fight isn't campable by vehicles. If we can't get a proper base at least design court yard structures to allow more infantry movement/fighting.

I'm sure well never get the bad ass bases we had in PS1, however I think in addition to everything else, spawn rooms should not be an independent building. They need to be less campable by vehicles (multiple indoorexits to spawns) and then you can remove the ability to shoot through their shields, maybe even prevent re-entry. They should be attached to larger more complex buildings or series of structures. Defenders need a chance to push out and shouldn't be able/encouraged to sit behind shields and camp themselves.

Another thought. If defenders couldn't shoot through shields then the electric fields by those shields should prevent the placement of explosives within so many meters of them as the defenders couldn't detonate them with out throwing a body in.

Badjuju · 2013-03-16, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Redshift

The shear volume of explosives needs to be managed before any sort of small scale cover becomes functional, yes that means nerfing rockets

I've been down with nerfing explosive damage for a while now. Max flack armor is mandatory in my eyes ATM. Like you said, the sheer number of explosives is the root of the problem, although they have been tightening radiuses some. Though, if infantry is out of range of my LMG, I rocket snipe them. Probably a problem haha.

Whether you just nerf infantry to infantry explosives or armor vs infantry explosives is another question. On one hand it is fun to nuke infantry. On the other, if you make vehicles less effective VS infantry, you can then like wise increase their armor and survivability so they don't drop so quick as well. They are still equally as powerful vs infantry, just on another scale (takes more shots to kill infantry but you take more as well). I guess if they did think a change to explosives was necessary, it would depend how they wanted fights to play out.

I would prefer the latter personally. Vehicles would be less obnoxious to infantry, and vehicles would feel more beastly to me with ESFs and tanks capable of taking more hits (not sure if you would add armor to sundies and gals.). Initially there would be a perception that vehicles were nerfed, or don't feel powerful, but that's just because they are use to a different section of the balance spectrum. It would just be a shift though.

I rather have vehicles be restricted more at how often you can pull one (resource revamp) but to do so you need means to pull back and repair them more easily. They would be less of a toss away item like they are now and would mean more to dedicated drivers as they could potentially keep their vehicles up for very long periods if they protect them. Right now a tank can go down and seconds instead of being the massively armored support vehicles they should have been from my perspective.

Again it comes down to how SOE wants battles to flow. My opinion may be very different from theirs or the communities.

Redshift · 2013-03-16, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Badjuju

I've been down with nerfing explosive damage for a while now. Max flack armor is mandatory in my eyes ATM.

The problem is that slight splash damage resets your shield recharge,
Since rockets are viable against infantry they are spammed,
This means you can't recharge your shields in small cover,

Rockets should have near no splash damage, since splash doesn't do anything appreciable to vehicles anyway, they should also barely damage infantry, fuck realism i want good gameplay, they proved AV weapons that kill infantry was a bad idea in PS1, why they reinstated it for PS2 god knows.

Badjuju · 2013-03-16, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Redshift

The problem is that slight splash damage resets your shield recharge,
Since rockets are viable against infantry they are spammed,
This means you can't recharge your shields in small cover,

Rockets should have near no splash damage, since splash doesn't do anything appreciable to vehicles anyway, they should also barely damage infantry, fuck realism i want good gameplay, they proved AV weapons that kill infantry was a bad idea in PS1, why they reinstated it for PS2 god knows.

It is definitely worse in Ps2. But I wouldn't even call it realism. In real life most rockets don't have much splash damage at all. They typically operate by firing a projectile, or directing the force of the explosion in a narrow trajectory through the tip of the rocket. Point would be to basically shoot armor piercing rounds at a target and have your gun firing point blank thanks to rocket propulsion closing the gap (momentum helps too).

RPG damage to a wall, not even armor.

Snydenthur · 2013-03-16, 06:35 PM

I don't really like the sound of more cover and I'm almost 100% infantry. I'm an engineer that runs with pump-action shotgun every time I play. Everywhere I play. So I have to get very close to enemy and if this playstyle doesn't need more cover, nobody really needs it. I like the fact that this game is different than every other game out there.

Mietz · 2013-03-16, 09:09 PM

I would like more clutter in between bases.

If you get in a fight in between facilities you are fucked as infantry, there isn't anywhere to hide or take cover.

Tall grass or brush would already be something since it would at least obscure LOS somewhat (negated by [Q] in a sense), it could at least provide some way for infantry to cross distances from larger cover-pieces like trees or for cloaking infiltrators to change position often and not be immediately spotted when decloaking.

Seriously, some brush, or larger rocks would do. The area around zurvan for example is mostly fine, the areas in between Allatlum and Crown isn't, its just a some low hills where you get bombed by everything with explosives.

In general, some more fighting in between facilities would be a good thing, not everything needs to be crammed into the facilities themselves.

While I hate Amerish, at least it has some good places for infantry to fight in between bases where you don't get sniped the second you spawn.

Palerion · 2013-03-16, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Snydenthur

I don't really like the sound of more cover and I'm almost 100% infantry. I'm an engineer that runs with pump-action shotgun every time I play. Everywhere I play. So I have to get very close to enemy and if this playstyle doesn't need more cover, nobody really needs it. I like the fact that this game is different than every other game out there.

But having minimal cover is not simply being "different".

I understand not having cover in a fast-paced acrobatic shooter like Tribes, but this is planetside 2. Once you get past the large player count and massive scale strategy, it is a tactical shooter where cover and structures are critical to gameplay. You may not think cover is necessary for your playstyle, but many people want something more than open fields. More cover for infantry would make infantry battles much more interesting and exciting.

This cover should not only be included in bases, but also, as someone else mentioned, in between bases. There should be more rocks, trees, hills, grass, etc. around roads and in fields. Inside the bases there should be less empty, open, and barren ground, and more buildings, bunkers, structures, clutter, fortifications, and, in short, cover. Not only does this finally make infantry fights tactical and interesting, but, in a game that can place 2,000 players on a continent and commonly has battles with hundreds of players per team, crossing absolutely open ground (which consists of a great portion of Planetside 2's bases) is far too dangerous. Giving players cover to run from can allow them to successfully move throughout bases without absolutely exposing themselves. Sure, some open ground is needed for vehicles, but not nearly as much as is currently present.

I don't think adding more cover to the game will ruin the experience. Quite frankly I think it will bring a tactical aspect to the infantry combat in this game that is currently missing. An aspect that players who truly enjoy infantry combat would love to see. For people who are actually interested in having fun and engaging infantry fights, not just the endless meat-grinders across open ground that currently take place, adding more cover is a high-priority aspect of the game, and one that should be implemented relatively soon.

bpostal · 2013-03-16, 10:02 PM

Cover is one of the reasons I enjoy the hell outta bridge fights. It's got some cover from Reavers and Libs, MBTs can't surround and pound the entire area and the fight is mostly directed at your front and sides.

Changing the cover inside bases to aid in the sensible push/pull flow of base assaults/defenses. Fights can be intense but incredibly chaotic, so chaotic that I feel that the gameplay is negatively impacted.

I also agree, vehicles should be removed entirely from the final push for the base, once the CY is breached.

FHMathew · 2013-03-16, 11:12 PM

My main issue is small outposts !

Taking inspiration from ww2 I would like to see perimeters of tank traps and barbed wire, Pillbox's and bunkers around small outposts that would give you sufficient chance of holding against infantry and armour and at the same time keeping you safe from air threats to defend your perimeter. Allot more natural cover like trenches and foxholes would be awesome circling an outpost.

Bunkers with wide opening to allow many players to shoot through with both rockets and small arms

Bunkers with limited openings to shoot through with small arms only

Falcon_br · 2013-03-17, 02:34 AM

My suggestion is that the heavy assault, in the equipament slot, a new certification.
Deployable cover!
Yeah, like those ones in some bridges, now you can deploy that so your squad got some kind of cover in the middle of nowhere!
Each rank decreases the cool down and increases cover hit points, so they can't be used to block bridges forever, because tanks can crush them or blow them away with a few shots.
My proposition is for the HA because he already got rockets, I do use c4 a lot, but with the current nerf I am more wiling to trade it for something else.
The engineer is also an option, but because he already got ammo, mines, turrets and probably will receive more items, I think that deployable cover can got to heavy assault.

DeltaGun · 2013-03-17, 03:06 AM

Battlefield can get away with having so much cover because you can shoot through the cover. This is not the case with Planetside 2.

If you took away the ability to penetrate some types of cover in Battlefield 3, my guess it it would become a very tedious game of who can abuse cover the best.

Falcon_br · 2013-03-17, 03:20 AM

I remember when you could just blow a building full of snipers in bf bc 2, and gets lots of kills from physics.
In planetside 1 we already discussed that on the beta, if you can destroy ANYTHING in the game, the players will destroy it, just look at any conquered base, there is no turret left alive after an attack, even terminals get destroyed. In PS 2 the bases can really use a self repair that exists in PS1 after it is conquered.
Now imagine full destructible walls, they are going to be the first targets of the enemy, not because they need to destroy it, they will destroy it because they can! So there is no place of destructible structures in planetside.

Snydenthur · 2013-03-17, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by Palerion

I understand not having cover in a fast-paced acrobatic shooter like Tribes, but this is planetside 2. Once you get past the large player count and massive scale strategy, it is a tactical shooter where cover and structures are critical to gameplay. You may not think cover is necessary for your playstyle, but many people want something more than open fields. More cover for infantry would make infantry battles much more interesting and exciting.

This cover should not only be included in bases, but also, as someone else mentioned, in between bases. There should be more rocks, trees, hills, grass, etc. around roads and in fields. Inside the bases there should be less empty, open, and barren ground, and more buildings, bunkers, structures, clutter, fortifications, and, in short, cover. Not only does this finally make infantry fights tactical and interesting, but, in a game that can place 2,000 players on a continent and commonly has battles with hundreds of players per team, crossing absolutely open ground (which consists of a great portion of Planetside 2's bases) is far too dangerous. Giving players cover to run from can allow them to successfully move throughout bases without absolutely exposing themselves. Sure, some open ground is needed for vehicles, but not nearly as much as is currently present.

I don't think adding more cover to the game will ruin the experience. Quite frankly I think it will bring a tactical aspect to the infantry combat in this game that is currently missing. An aspect that players who truly enjoy infantry combat would love to see. For people who are actually interested in having fun and engaging infantry fights, not just the endless meat-grinders across open ground that currently take place, adding more cover is a high-priority aspect of the game, and one that should be implemented relatively soon.

Well, how would cover make it more interesting? This game doesn't currently even have almost any long range combat so adding cover would make shooting at long range completely useless. I'd say it's more interesting to see someone running at the open field and laughing that he wont make it alive.

This game is based on the number of players and vehicles. If you run in the open field with like 50 other players, there's a big chance you wont be even shot once. Other option is to close the distance in a vehicle. And there's always the sneaky way to come from direction that the enemy doesn't expect.

If the cover was added, I think they should make ttk even faster to prevent the boring running from cover to cover and regenerating the shield gameplay. Haven't you been bored to death sometimes in bf3? You see someone running and have time to take a couple of shots at him. Then he just stops at the nearest cover, regenerates health and it's like you never shot him. In planetside 2, if you're spotted out of cover in base, you'll die, so you can't just run around like headless chicken all the time.