[Suggestion] Player Bases

I wasn't playing PlanetSide 2 for quite a while and only comeback recently, simply because there is no replacement for the kind of battle and action PlanetSide provides.
But there is now this thing. Construction or Player Bases, which seem to me just odd at best and annoying most of the time. I'll try to explain my problem with these things and the rough idea I had for a better and more fitting Basebuilding system.

The Problem

Currently Player bases can be build anywhere, next to existing permanent ones. Therefore they get places in the fields between those or on Mountains or in small valleys.
Most of the time though, they seem to be just anywhere but near fights, where they could be provide extra and safer spwans, instead there are being used for VP generating and that is it.
The exceptions are the bases, which have shields, plenty of AI guns and put on a mountain and act as Zerg killer or shutting down the air game in the region. Overall they just annoy the enemies, on the long term they do not change the outcome at the real base much.
They just shut down the air game most of the time, I am no active pilot, so that doesn’t really bother me, but I have to say that there is more than enough AA around, that we really do not need AI AA guns in the game.

In of course limited time around them so far, I feel like the whole Base system seems out of touch with the actual meta or better lattice game. I also do not understand what the motivation behind them are, no one started ps2 to drive around for 10-15 mins to spend than another 5-10 mins building a base and generate some VP points to lock a map without ever fighting for it...in a FPS game in a MMOFPS game. The Victory Point system I imo alright, I could use fine tuning and some other ideas, but overall ok...we get to leave Indar sometimes a day, that’s good, Esamir and Amerish are better maps, when they are populated.

This roughly touches the problem I have with this system.


The Change

I can only assume, what the motivation behind making it was, maybe just "the engine supports it, because H1Z1, might as well use it".
Or if DBG wanted to provide new kind of fights and bases and thought letting the players take care of it might be a good idea, it worked for the cosmetics.

I would love to be able to create a proper base, which is part of the actual meta, the war attached to the lattice, after like 4k hours the old ones to get boring and everyone knows the sundy spwans, so often capturing is steamroll or die.
My Idea is that once a base is captured, the dominant Outfit can pick a Player, which becomes than the architect of the base.The architect can remove certain walls and buildings and can set new ones.
To avoid completely ****** up base designs, there should be crucial buildings/ways which can't be removed. Example the bridges at Shrouded Skyway or Kwathee Mountain Complex might have to be unchangeable.
Also the architect needs to be a person, which isn’t below BR50, maybe even BR90 or 100. This certainly gives people to stick around in the game for more than just certs and a reason to be part of a team.

When the dominant outfit does not build the base, the leader can either delegate it to a player, who matches the requirements and is still in the region or the base spawns the default layout.

If DBG fear of taking away the options to build something in PS2 from the large majority of the players, just let them give the option to put down a Bunker, turret or something similar on, in or near the base, which they got the resources. (Note I do not think the architect should have to mine resources this game isn’t PvE BS)

But tbh I don't think it will be missed.

So, in order to modify the lattice bases, it has to be lost & recaptured, or simply originally be the enemy's base?

As well, what prevents said Architect from ripping out the entire ability to defend it or attack it, via massive walls or lack there of?

Or excessive number of turrets.
Can said Architect also do this in the middle of a battle? How long can they rework the base?
Can they move cap points, or affect anything near them?
(Place an AI or AV turret facing the doorway, a wall blocking off the entire path to it)

What about placing Turrets to engage different bases, IE why select AV turrets aren't existing anymore on some bases?

Is there a limit to the number of turrets? Would it be based on the base's original count, size, or a set number around the base size?
Would there be a radius in-between objects?

How would you prevent sealing of bases entirely?

- Side note: Most AA guns are useless. And require amassing & pilot error, just to use effectively if at all.
All non-player-base AA turrets can barely cover the base they are on, due to a max range on the weapon.
Player-base AA turrets are better replaced with the AI turrets often enough, with neither able to survive actual aircraft with intelligence.
Let alone properly kill, without said aircraft literally staying in the thickest field of fire possible.

Overall answer to your list of questions:
There obviously need to be set parameters in which the architect can modify the base. Sealing could be prevented by either a pathfind system, which checks if it is still possible to walk and not just fly into the base. Or X amount of positions are marked and can not be builded on.
About Moving points, I personaly can see this working, I might get proven wrong though, matter of testing.

Most of your points answer themself, as said there need to be limits in which can be build, this includes turrets and spacing between them or other objects.

After a cap I would say there is a 2min window in which the base can be modifyed befor the default layout gets set. But to give some more time I'll say that as long as the hex in which you try to modify smt, is not contested you can. All work on the base is paused if a point is flipping.

I might need to add, that the whole building process would probably be better if its not jus done in 3rd person, either via the map or a angled 3d view on to the area, possible opened from a terminal.

That would have to be an extensive system to check for practical walk-ability.

If points A-C are all located around the spawn, or moved to the far reaches, attack or defense can be rendered hellish.
Recall any base where the points are right around the spawn (or imagine the Crown with the points so spread out)

Which means, the first Attacking force can better defend the captured land than the original Defenders.
Or we end up, with bases all constantly being lost just to rebuild or replace someone's last crazy idea.

Yes, 3rd person would be better than all this 1st person construction.
As dear mercy is it hard to even see what you are doing half the time, when using the construction system.

It's a creative idea in the least.
Just really vulnerable to abuse.

So is the current system to be onest. But people did not went crazy with it, beside some roadblocks ("friendlys" blocked the gate at Tarwich Rec. completly of, making it near impossible to reach the TP itself from the warpgate side by ground vehicle.

And with minimum BR + the archtiect limited to the dominate outfit at first I doubt that there is too much potantial for abuse.

Also first DBG needs to think if it worth trying, as well as the playerbase...for me this is first of all a better version of the current construction sh**, which has done more damage to the gameplay of players fighting than the hand full of people building certed out bases or building base near map end to generate VPs in peace and lock continents all day long without effort.

So just 1 idea to replace the current system, instead of just killing it.

Hope to get some more responses what people think of the general idea on modifiying the "real" bases instead of making the current odd out of place ones (no bias).

Player-made bases are fantastic.

They allow teams to slow or stop large enemy movements (among other things). They allow players to be creative; as a sandbox game should.

Limiting players does not free them.

Yes, yes it is.

It's the higher battleranks whom would abuse it..
As they are the smart-ones knowing the exact angles a base could be rendered unable to be captured in a practical sense.
The ones whom know where a turret would be hell.
Where the Points would be easiest to camp from, to where you can abuse the pathing system for walls, entries, or Capture points.
The ones who could easily have a toon, to alter a base's defenses or to undermine it by being the highest ranked "ally"
- Strip it of defenses, as you conquer it & the next base over: They wouldn't have much to defend the points.
- Make the very means of attacking that specific base, the most difficult, As they'd know the exact requirements.

Imagine a base, where there's only a few ways to take it , like the Old Crown, or only a few ways to defend it, like the New Crown.
Now imagine what seasoned veterans would do to such bases, with the knowledge of how it is so hard to take, or defend.
Imagine what seasoned veterans whom understand the exact range of AV turrets would do with the ability to place the AV.
They are the ones whom would for sure know, the Turret locations that Daybreak removed, that allow some dodgy crap.

However, it at least doesn't alter the lattice bases which can be far worse as such walls are indestructible.
Such turrets are always repair-able.

But hey, at least it doesn't just generate VPs out in some random hell hole for AFK builders.
So I will give you that, it would be slightly better in some respects.

But also means you couldn't fortify a bridge off on Indar, create a Fire Base on Esmair, Defensive fortifications on Amerish, or a Air Pad on Hossin, where-ever is needed.

So I say: Why not both?
(Minus Hives with VPs, those really need a better job)

- After a lot of maybe refinement?

Sorry but during haydays of PS2 we didn't had base building either or smt you might call creative. PS2 is not a Sandbox game, it Openworld but not Sandbox and overall it a shooter the large majority of the players is not here for build bases.
Yes they do stop zerg in someway, I said that, but the problem is the way they do it. If you build a base it should be were good fights can be. When the map was designed it was not designed to have Walls/turrets/etc pp on the Mountains, between them or in valleys. Most of the fights I had around these bases we no fun for either side, they killed a decent forward movement, but that could be done much better and more fun with a proper Platoon leader just counter pushing/flanking whatever.

Limiting players is tho what happened on and on, first with the resources, than with spwans. Now I often can't spwan from 1 BL outpost to the other one.
But if putting 4-5 walls around a silo and shield on top is creativ, I am sure my idea properly worked out can provide the same artistic freedom ;D

obviously it does need a lot of refinement, something most updates lacked so far...*cough*the whole release of PS2 was*cough*
I came up with the idea in 5 mins on the toilet. Which is the reason I posted here, to refine it.

Because I lack time at moment I give your questions back to you, any solutions?

No control over Turrets, due to the fact it would be incredibly context-specific for turrets not having the same problems as prior, but far worse due to intentional placement with the goal being to cause the problem.

Walls, well consider how much of a pain it would be for any system to check for practical walk-ability.
It would have to consider other walls, turrets, and terrain.

So a solution to that specific set of issues...

Would be a custom set of select-able locations for Walls, Turrets and other objects. Shared select-able locations.
IE, placement options that are pre-set, base-specific, and factor in choices. (Aka nearby selections)
Examples:
Do I change the wall section here for one of my Turret-placements, change the wall type or leave it?
Do I move this Turret from slot 1 on the east to slot 7 on the west, of my # of turrets.
I can't place this wall here, due to the rock-face, but I can pick a Turret between AV & AI.
This tower can be replaced with an AV turret , AI turret, AA turret or a Sundy Garage.
This Gateway can't be turned into a solid wall, due to the required number of gateways not being met.
This is one of several Gateway spots, As long as I use enough of the gateway spots, I can make this one solid.
Do I want this gateway to be a vehicle Gate? A Sundy Garage, or a Vehicle Spawn Pad?

This reduces the amount of issues that can be caused, but also limits creativity.
It also requires each base be made essentially modular, with a per-base set-up due to terrain differences & interactions between hexes.
Which takes a lot of time, making the first modular-set-up, which you then adjust per base.
If you make only 'medium' \ select bases have said modular customization, then you reduce the work-load.
But also the variations of base fights across the board.

Contrived gaming experiences are obsolete.

If you don't like where players are building bases, then destroy the base.

I would, if this would be at least entertaining, but I don't find joy in going after 2 guys at the edge of map sitting in certed out base on a hard reach mountain. So that I need a lot more people destroy it. Just to see it rebuild 15 mins later. Belive it or not but I don't count my self to the 10 guys which joined for building bases in deserted places in a MMOFPS game.

And these guys, I assume, which are building the bases, do not want any fights. They just want an easy XP and map lock gain. Otherwise why would they build it in these places where there can be no proper fight.
So even if i go after the bases, this is not going to change the terrible meta of building the bases in extremly one sided or edge of the map places.

And in general, because it came up 2 twice now, PS2 is a shooter it is not a creative sandbox game. Often enough people do not know what they want until you show it to them. (not exact quote from Steve Jobs here)

When the maps got designed they got designed around the permanent bases and the otherway around, these temp. ones are only distruptive at best. It like building a bunker with AI turrets on A long on dust2 from CS, the probably most played map in a game ever made, people would stop playing it...but oh well it gives the player more options to be creative in the game. Yeah just no.

Some people do enjoy that.

Why should a MMO FPS cater to what you find fun? Can a game such as PS2 provide good experiences to people that find fun in different ways?

You general mindset seems to be, if there 1 person doing it and having fun, it is overall good and stays.
This system is a year old, sadly people get used to trash.

I just judge the bigger picture from what I have seen myself so far. And I doubt that DBG is happy on how the base system currently working with the rest of the game, unless DBGs goal is to kill more fights and the game faster than befor.

The Hive Bases are killing great fights on a daily basis and I am not the only one who enjoys the fights with a capture or a wipe of the defenders through battle more, than a Text on my screen saying that the continent has been locked and everything is owned by XYZ, because they got few more stubborn ppl to build more of the grid bases.

And to be more specific to your writing. "Some" should not matter in PS2, especially when it's linked to a system which impact everyone else as well, you can't compare the way PS2 is a MMO to the RPG ones, which are from ground up made to cater to PvE, PvP, building etc pp. The large and epic scale of PS2 is what makes this game what it is and the Base System, in it's current state, is a big minus to that.


Hopefully you are getting the point here now.

is that person less important than you?

Follow up, there are many people that enjoy the base building aspect of the game; not one.

Inregard of game yes. Player Bases are badly implemented and unbalanced in taking down and building up.

If 5 ppl can lock a map through of the hex bases killing fights out of nowhere for 100s of players, I certainly do give more importance to them.

Also my original idea was a change not a total removal, so people, which practice this base building like a religion are not completly left out in the cold.

I like this idea, but there are still several problems. The most pressing problem would be that there will probably nearly 'perfect' configurations for most bases, so these will almost always we used by veterans.
Also some bases depend alot on the terrain they are build on. Look for example at lithcorp central, modifying that would be very hard for a player architect.
The player architect should also have user friendly GUI. The system shouldn't work like construction sytem, in which getting an overwiew can be hard.

I also think you can give each base a certain amount of resources, an make placing things like turrets, buildings, gates and generators cost resources. Placing a SCU will give resources as it makes defending harder. The larger the base the more resources.
Lastly changing an base just after it got capped is probably not a good idea.

I present: the world view of the "I can make the game better" interest.

just wow, you are the definition of nitpicker. Try read all the responses fully and not take words out of context.

So far your view is putting a very small groups interest over the by far biggest group. If you try to ever make a game, with this mindset you will either never finish it or crash and burn. You can't make everyone happy and as said befor I actual provided a replacement, while you are just being stubborn and happy with a bad status quo, instead of accepting the fact that the current system is far from ideal for this game.

“is that person less important than you?”

SoliderRusH said: ↑

“Inregard of game yes.”