There Is No Problem With Base Design

I'm sure they do in every single situation op... I don't want to call you a liar, but I believe you are. It's not always feasible, but hey you can go ahead and say whatever you want on these forums. What server you on? I am going to make an alt so that I can see every single scrap of land being fought over.

Connery.

I'd be happy to show you.

"Problem" is not at the facilities anymore.
Problem lies at smaller outposts which quite franckly, serve no purpose :
* They can't act as a base for resupply
* They are not defensible to serve as defense point
* Their only purpose is to act as a hard spawn point, but this purpose is defeated by their spammable design. Spawning there is AN ERROR in 99% of the cases.
Why do they exist?

Player at Crown types "Attack from the north!". Player at Hvar Tech Plant sees it, attacks from the north by himself, gets owned. Yep, faction chat is a great idea.

Are you aware how arrogant you sound? I'm just wondering.

Don't get me wrong op, I am with you on the player mentality of not wanting to die so badly that they end up getting camped. I die a lot because I don't hang out in spawn rooms, but it leads to other problems ie enemy mines, grenades, and campers. Not only that but friendly fire, getting shot up from your spawn because players are bad. Friendly grenades.... Because you really can't fix stupid sometimes. I make my living on defense because it's more rewarding to me to repel the enemy.

However, base design has fundamental flaws that need to be addressed. Spawn rooms should not be so easily camped and bases should actually feel defensible, which they don't imo. Small outlaying facilities don't matter but the bases that matter are too easily taken because of the layout.

-1

Also, another point I've not raised :
Another problem for me is the lack of thought put up on the low level tactical requirement.
Everything today is dictated by rough placement and purpose. "Let's put a AA squad in these rocks", "We need AV platoon up this hill". And nothing beyond that.
Thinking about covering arcs? Never
Tailoring your group for main avenues, preparing the spot? Never
All the low level preparation and coordination is gone. It's all about putting X number of Role R people against Z people of role Q. Skill in PS2 relies on having more X of the good R. You cannot defeat that by preparation and taking your environment into account.
It's an all-or-nothing deal. You **** "role Q" by your numbers when sitting on a hill, until your ennemy find the camp place to put the correct people (the correct role), and you are then obliterated.
Mine fields? Spawn point hide and protection (remember PS1 radar protection devices?) ?

I understand this cannot be a design principle in open environment, but the outposts and base are exactly the places where it could become important again. In PS2, there is no difference between your outpost and that rocky formation on top of the hill west of it.

I think it's a great tactic to place squads in specific roles at locations that you know the enemy is coming. We use spies via esfs, las, or infiltrators for that reason... Using the terrain to your advantage is what good tacticians do...

-1 for the arrogant and condescending way the OP is acting towards people, who actually have valid points.
In some way it seems like a troll post.

Anyway. To be honest the base designs, such as the outposts and towers ( Le Swiss cheese ), are terrible designs and the gameplay they offer is redudant/non-rewarding. I'm not just talking about how campable they are ( but yes they quickly result in a camp fest instead of a glorious siege followed by an intense battle. )

I can't see the interesting part in attacking a base that is so easy to capture, thus favoring the attackers every time. I'd rather have a challenge, even if it caters to people who want to camp around a base all day and play royal guardsman.

The current 20x10 spawn boxes are laughable and there's been put minimal design thought into them.

You could easily have 'these' interesting battles, with flanking maneuvers ect. while creating a solid and defensible base design.

If you like to horde your "sheep" around Mr. OP - Going around the continent and reinforcing bases, I see no problem in also adding to the current base design, thus keeping 'your' favored gameplay style in mind, while also improving others.

To sum it up I don't like the current base design because it is boring to defend and boring to attack.
The chat you're talking about is the command chat. If you want something that has a wider range, it will be spammed with useless information 24/7 and therfore it will negate the usefulness of such a "tool".

To create your own win is fine. If people love driving a sunderer all day or healing people without taking a single shot that's all good and well - But I see NO point in NOT improving the current base design.

Yes, ofc, and having better outpost design will NOT REMOVE THAT FACT
It will still be a good tactical decision, and people will still do it! No problem with that.

That's not my lil issue here
What I witness is that preparation practically NEVER goes beyond "simply" thinking about putting your specific role at specific position. You never prepare your squad because the place you are going has 3 entry points, 2 AMS hide points with 1 obvious 1 and another more subtle, enabling the use of a fake AMS to force ennemy into thinking they got your spawn option, etc.... I practically never see any thing of the sort, which were more common in PS1. That's what I call "lower level tactical preparation", thinking more about the details. In PS2, you don't care about the details, you don't have to, numbers are far more important.

Replace all tiny hexes with large hexes containing spawn shack facilities and their associated Benefit-Giving-Facility (Bio-Lab, Amp Station, Tech-Plant).

Then the issue of never falling out of lattice would appear with large adjacent hexes... :/

Completely agree MrK. Those reasons are why I joined The Enclave because it's the only outfit I see on my server that thinks with a fully tactical mindset.

As good as doing the Rambo thing was for me as far as xp goes, I'm having far more fun playing with people that enjoy the scope of massive team play. We do our best not to ghost cap or overwhelm the enemy, and do a good job for the most part. Usually one squad will jump into platoon sized enemies and hold them off. We will zerg to break cont locks though, but that doesn't last long. Our biggest problem is that when the blue or purple try to ghost cap a continent and we move to intercept, they leave. Besides base design lack of will to fight is a big problem in this game. It's why bads stay in spawn rooms until the hex is gone.

I would prefer being shot by non rendered enemies than have nothing to shoot at, at all. That should be all of our attitudes.

Your blithering on this topic never makes any sense. If the automatic solution to having a base under attack is to abandon that base then why have them at all? Why should the defenders travel time from spawn point to engagement point be longer than the attackers?

If this is your constant catch-cry then you may as well have no bases at all, just pillars standing out in the wilderness and everyone can just fight open field. You don't seem to understand the basic concept of what a "fortress" is. If you were complaining about a fortress mentality where people won't sally forth to strike back at the enemy then yes I might agree with that, but you are arguing something completely ridiculous.

PS: Your condescending tone simply causes people to assign you to the 'Self-Important-Internet-Blowhard" basket so any valid points you might have get ignored. Dial it down and someone might listen to you.

Most the time it doesn't work, or show up for the one typing.

I am sorry, but what are you smoking? Do you call it sophisticated, not to stop enemy movement at the most obvious choke point? How is this even related to me?
You completely got me here bro, could you please elaborate it for me, what a faction chat can do for me when im locked inside a spawn room with 15 other players, and we are being camped by a zerg of 3 liberators 6 ESF and god knows how many infantry/tanks?

Go on. Elaborate it for me please, cause seemingly you are living in a dream world.
During the UES we couldnt even get players to join amerish to fight along with us in the event, and you expect that people will throw away everything they were doing just to rush up against a zerg, just because you barfed something in faction chat?
What?

Sorry. I'll repeat what i said:
Please quit posting on the forums while you are not a player.
Cause with this suggestion and opinion, its painfully obvious that you never once played PS2 in your god damned life.

This. You stay In base, It allows enemies easy access to the walls. You get out of base, It gives enemy vehicles easier access to your exposed forces.

The bases themselves need overhauls to encourage sieges. I liked the old tech-plant. It was hard and battles took a while. It was fun. Bio-Labs have a few to many holes now. Granted initial beta there were to few, now, to many. AMP stations? Well, see above. Overall there are to many ways to bypass defenses.

Fun fact: The Maginot Line worked, the germans didn't get through it. They went around it.

Being static in a tank, I would agree. But bases do not apply to this logic since they are indestructible. Bases need to have:
-good arcs of fire (meaning lack of cover for attackers),
-high ground (so enemies cant shoot into the base which is a major problem with towers atm),
-multiple fall back/rally points (so once the wall has fallen defenders can fall back to another wall). I reckon this should be expanded even further for big bases. Say for example the first points of defences are bridges that lead to the base, once they are taken the defence can fall back to the hillside around the base i.e. the only route by ground to the base would be up roads that are covered by pillboxes etc, once this is breached then the defenders can fall back to the outer walls etc and so on). Making a base defensible doesnt just mean making the walls hard to breach. An effort should be made to encourage open field battle first then a slow retreat to the walls.
-Ease of access for the defence (defenders need to be able to move around the base a lot quicker)
FF

Leave the base? When we talk about base design, it's mostly about the little bases. I think by now everyone understands the concept of retaking the sub bases as biolabs, amp stations and tech plants to control the spawn points and teleporters. That's not what the complaints are about, they're about the open layout of all the other little bases and how infantry can't get out of the spawn room once there's vehicles about, because it's all open ground, because vehicles can shoot straight into every building through the doors and windows, and most of the cap points aren't covered. Therefore what could have been a fun infantry fight at a little facility is ruined once vehicles show up.

But, after you let vehicles "be about", isn't it over? Unless one can break out of course.

I just don't see the benefit of encouraging spawning into a battle at the last second. Once they get to your spawns, and you can't get out, its over. You should have stopped them before they got there.