Bases should not be immune to vehicles

I read many threads about making bases impervious or immune to vehicles, let me tell you that is a mistake and it would take away from the game and I think it does in those areas where this has been tried.

DISCLAIMER: Spawn rooms should not be put in an area where vehicles or even infantry can easily gain LOS especially from range. Bases and outposts should be designed to be more Infantry friendly by using buildings and other structures such as rocks, trees, pillars or barricades to break up that LOS and provide infantry cover, but rarely should walls be used to completely segregate the fighting.

There is nothing wrong with vehicles being able to gain a tactical position and bombard the battlements of a base or tower, that is the failure of the defenders to defend that position. Just like a capture point in a base that infantry need to defend, so is that ridge line and all points surrounding the exterior of a base or tower. If the defenders can't keep vehicles off of a ridge line, berm or embankment, that is really no different then losing a point in the base and they should be punished for not holding that position.

Many people argue that all base captures should involve infantry vs infantry only and bases should be designed to segregate infantry from vehicles. I think that is the wrong approach, while I agree vehicles shouldn't be able to roll up on a point and sit on it, at the same time they should be part of and contribute to the fight and sometimes that means sitting on a hill and pinning the enemy infantry down.

Bases and towers, should not be zoned infantry only, but rather be labeled as vehicles enter or approach at your own risk. And what I mean by that is rather then building walls to keep vehicles completely out, the areas around outposts and towers should be porous and utilize buildings, rocks, trees, trenches, boxes & bunkers. These structures do not necessarily keep vehicles out, but restrict their movement and field of view, while at the same time allow infantry to move in and around the outposts easily and gain better positions on those vehicles.

The biggest issue I have with walls and segregating the infantry from vehicles is it is a two way street. Not only does this segregation keep enemy vehicles out of the fight, but it also keeps friendly vehicles out as well. I agree bases should be designed around infantry fighting, but that doesn't mean infantry only. Defenders need to be able to spawn and set up defensive positions with their own vehicles in and around bases and those vehicles also need targets and objectives to attack (ie..The enemy tank sitting on the ridge shelling your base) If the enemy vehicles are sitting outside the walls of your segregated base, what incentive is there to pull friendly vehicles to destroy them? Very little they aren't impacting the fight so there is little need to go to the effort of spawning your own vehicles from another base to counter them.

Esamir is a prime example of the error of segregating Infantry & vehicles. Since the implementation of the WALLS we see much fewer fights in the open areas between bases, because there is very little need to do so. Defenders do not need to create a counter or a vehicle buffer to attacking vehicles, because that is provided for by the WALLS. That's not to say we don't see open field fights, but it is nothing like what we see for example in the areas on Indar around crossroads, regents rock, snake ravine. Those bases are all vulnerable to a certain degree from vehicle bombardment, therefore the best defense is to meet the enemy in the open fields and we see some of the best back and forth fights that involve vehicles & Infantry in tandem, not because the bases are easy to defend or are segregated by walls, but rather because they are not.

Vehicles give advantage to larger team and make base harder to defend. Segregating infantry from vehicle combat is necessary evil if we want more defensible bases.

I dont agree.There is already enough space where vehicles can battle it out.Pure Infantry fight still happens to rarely for me personally.Biolabs and towers are pretty much the only places you have that pure Infantry gameplay.Why would you take that last bit away when vehicles have the whole rest of the map....

Any defensible base would not allow enemy vehicles inside it.
Every base should be amp stations.

TL;DR

"No Vehicles Allowed" seems to be one of the central themes to a lot of the Amerish and Hossin designs, and where vehicles do have access to 100% of the base like they do everywhere else now, the defenders are given practical defenses against them.

So I guess we'll get a chance to see how game breaking it really is to keep them out. Except we don't have to because it's so clearly not going to happen.

Battle Island. Do it. Do it now.

It's fine, They need some spots of vehicles and some for infantry. Right now they are not many good spots for infantry to fight

I skimmed it and this part I agree with entirely. Unfortunately I think management at SoE sees this as 1)costly 2) hard to balance 3)hard to optimize for good performance. I don't feel like SoE is currently spending much money on the PC side of PS2 which is a topic for a different thread but if I'm right in saying it then we're not going to get well-designed bases.....we'll just get the cheaper...easier no-vehicles spaces.

A larger group is always going to have the advantage it doesn't matter if it more infantry or more vehicles. A small group of vehicles can more easily hold off a larger group, than a small group infantry can hold off a larger group of infantry.

Bio labs have to be some of the most boring fights in this game, as they are nothing more than infantry meat grinders with one side shooting out an entrance and the other side shooting in the entrance.

If bases are designed properly, you do not need to segregate the fighting, because Infantry will hold the upper hand against vehicles in and around the base and friendly vehicles will also be part of the fighting as well to support the ground troops. The point is not to have the game forcibly separate infantry from vehicles, but to give infantry the upper hand, in those situations.

Biolabs, Vanu Archives, Quartz Ridge, Mesa Skydock... What all most defensible bases have in common is they restrict vehicle access.

The problem is after the first battle it turns into a small group of infantry vs a large group of tank and infantry. Which makes it unbearable for the small team because all the stuff was destoyed

You mean that Halo 3 map?

The game is already Infantryside 2, the Battle Island makes it even worse because of no maneuvering room at all.

Or it maybe it has something to do with them being on a huge ******* rock or something that requires jump pad/teleporter access.

Actually, they're the most defensible because all the control points at those bases are inside the main defense structures and those structures are designed to bottleneck attackers without hurting defenders.

Vanu archives has a point n the ground that the attackers can use to access a teleporter room. and all of those bases do pretty much exclude tanks from easily effecting the battle for any important points and funnel infantry into easily defensible chokes.

Walls 'o text notwithstanding, I DISAGREE.

Bases that tanks aren't allowed into would defuse zergs and make the game more fun. Why are biolab fights the most intense and fun? Welllll.... NO TANKS/AIR SPAM.

You like tanks spamming bases? Maybe you like farming hapless newbs.

lol, my thought exactly. I was trying to be nice. +1

and where are the most intense, fun and profitable (for both defense and offense) battles? Hmmmmm... seeing a pattern here.