Hidden Ridge Mining Revamp: Walls on Amerish

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by UberBonisseur, Oct 8, 2013.

  1. Patrician

    And this is the problem, players going after the easiest and quickest way to pad their K/D and not doing what is best for their faction/outfit/squad and ignoring their K/D.
    • Up x 1
  2. nukularZ

    Which goes back to poor base design, which I did mention.
    • Up x 2
  3. UNSCSpartan051

    **** no. I had enough of ******* esamir ******* mazes. I want old Indar Base design back. I want old Esamir with the Pit and everything to come back. And if you ******* touch amerish, the only continent where my planetside 2 release memories and tactics live on, It's the last straw.
    I want to play Planetside, a massive COMBINED ARMS GAME, not ******* maze simulator 3000.
    • Up x 3
  4. Patrician

    That and the fact that SOE made it so that the world and their son can pull vehicles in PS2, unlike their, much better, system in PS with restricted cert numbers and multiple player vehicles..
    • Up x 1
  5. SolLeks

    you do realise the first rocket launcher the HA got wayyyy back in the first week of tech test was a lock on that targeted air and ground no? Lockons have been in game as long as anyone outside SOE has played it.

    there are reasons people just farmed at launch, there is nothing else really to do, on top of that people would spawn at the same place and get killed the same way many times in a row, is it really the tank's fault or is it the person who keeps spawning at a covered spawn and not falling back to get a gal and try to re take the point from a different angle?

    Tanks / air spawn camped because of poor base design, and we still have that problem. If tanks and air did not spawn camp, infantry would because thats the only way to make sure a base is not re-capped. There are many things that have could have been set up differently to prevent this, walls are not helping as much as even just being able to down the tubes would (IE force the spawn camped to make a counter attack instead of letting them continuously die.
    • Up x 2
  6. Pikachu

    • Up x 6
  7. maxkeiser

    I seriously can't believe they are doing this.

    If they aren't careful they will drive away people who really love the game - people who play because of the differences between PS2 and other FPS games.

    The walls on Esamir are just a joke. They are not fun for anyone. As infantry I just hate them. Esamir pre-walls was 100% better.

    Hopefully they will reconsider this, or at least only put in walls on a few bases.
    • Up x 8
  8. SolLeks

    That is about all players have to do though if you think about it.

    I still remember the huge let down of my first continent capture. Sitting at the last base with a fairly large zerg, watching the timer tick down and once it hit 0, *Nothing!* no popup, no experience, nothing! Then I opened the map and the top had changed to "NC OWN THIS" and I thought "Really? thats it?" I mean come on, how hard would it to have even a simple splash screen go up saying "Congratulations!"

    From that day on, I never really cared about capturing a continent, other than warpgate a faction for the trololo factor.

    I miss the old esmir =(

    Now it takes me forever to navigate the walls just to get to our sundie so I can drive to the next base and get funneled into a choke point while the sundie is set up in the designated sundie area all these walls have... Its a joke.
    • Up x 2
  9. axiom537

    I am not a big fan of the walls, especially with out a ledge on the inside. If they are going to be reworking the bases, They should use terrain, especially rocks which allow infantry to easily pass under or over and they provide a natural cover for engaging vehicles, while keeping ground vehicles out. I also like the idea of using additional buildings, which give infantry cover and allows them to utilize windows and the roofs as cover for engaging vehicles and the building themselves by their very nature keep vehicles from getting to close, while giving infantry the tactical height advantage and a place to have infantry vs infantry fights, room to room, building to building.

    I also love the idea of catwalks linking buildings, and other features. Vehicles can still drive under them if they dare, but if their infantry do not control the buildings then it will be a death trap for them. I think this is most important for the defender, because it allows them to pull vehicles and protect them, until they are ready to exit the base.

    But the biggest key to a base is the defenders need to have easy and multiple avenues to reach the capture point, most if not all protected or elevated in such a means that the fight from the spawn room to the capture point is almost entirely infantry vs infantry. The bases and outposts need to be designed so that as a base becomes capturable, the fight begins as vehicle vs vehicle outside the base, then it will be infantry (base) vs vehicles (outside), until infantry can no longer hold the walls, then the fight should progress inside and be infantry vs infantry.

    On a side note, I think each facility should have two spawn rooms on each side of the base with the capture point in the center. If the base has multiple capture points, then each spawn room should have at least one teleporter each, which would allow the defender two locations to spawn on and 4 points of attack from inside the facility to reac hthe capture point. Bases should also be designed in a way that if those spawn rooms are 100m from the capture points, then the closest an AMS or other ground vehicle could get ever get would be 100m as well.
    • Up x 4
  10. UberBonisseur

    • Up x 1
  11. LtSqueak

    I have a suggestion (and please feel free to inform me if it would cause performance to nose-dive even further).
    Why not put shields over all windows (and possibly doors...maybe) that allow all infantry ordinance to pass through, but none from vehicles, or at least tank shells and rockets. Plus have a couple of decently protected walkways between the major buildings around a point. As long as there are windows facing the point, but attackers can go sit on a point with tanks all they want, but the defenders can just rain death with the tanks not being able to do anything. In order to fully take a base it would more than likely take true combined arms for the attackers since the defenders have the base advantage.

    Thoughts? Feel free to light me on fire and push me off the Bastion if it really is that bad
  12. Cougarbrit

    Don't even care brah, they can put all the walls up they want, I'll still get my Marauder harasser in there for some good old fashioned infantry farming. Feel sorry for the Prowler bros though.
  13. Brahma2

    How about instead of walling the bases off completely... make bases actually scary for vehicles to get near. Add more turrets, make said turrets have more health, give more points for killing said turrets, make a more effective kind even if you want, everyone wins. Bases should be inhospitable for vehicles because they're getting shot at, not because they can't hit any part of it.
    • Up x 4
  14. Vaphell

    Wtf... Walls on Amerish, i don't even... o_O
    Amerish is rather hostile to ground mech as it is, there are many trees and rock formations giving plenty of cover and its uneven terrain in general makes overcommitting very risky for tanks. Get stuck for a second and you become a cert pinata. If anything, Amerish should be made more friendly to tanks in order to see more action. I am not talking about letting them shell spawns but what about straightening all these ungodly, 1km long, serpentine roads that connect places 200m apart, that make moving around a ***** and subject mech to merciless asswhooping done by ESFs, lockons and mana AVs. Sure, there should be such places, but as it stands Amerish is like that everywhere.

    As someone mentioned earlier, bases in general should be constructed like the Stronghold. Core structures should be built on a platform that is easily 5m above the ground level of the immediate surroundings, giving the advantage to defenders. Elevation removes the need for walls, modest fence with pieces of full cover here and there are more than enough. And no convenient parking lots for attackers on a nearby elevated spots, ffs why on earth most bases have at least one prowler hill nearby with a perfect view on the spawnroom. And if you really need to have these hills around because sightseeing (even though it's idiotic, defensive structures should absolutely dominate their neighborhood), put huge barriers to cover only obvious directions from which shelling can be performed with ease.
    Oh, and if you put turrets somewhere, make them actually usable by not pointing them right into a rock or a tree 20m away.

    And for bonus points you can be creative with platform bases, because with few polygons you can make them completely ignore the uneven terrain (well duh, just look at all the castles and cities built around the world in all kinds of trippy places, like Machu Picchu) eg a base hugging the mountain slope and having 'terraces', a base that is built directly above the road passing through.
    • Up x 5
  15. SolLeks

    because vehicles need more god mode infantry killing them =0

    PS1 style base capture, like otherwise stated in this thread where its tank/air vs tank/air outside, then tank/air vs infantry defending the walls, then its infantry vs infantry inside when they can't hold the walls is the best way for a game like this to play out IMO. thus it comes back to poor base design, which I think stems from the fact that they did not want base assaults to last 'to long' so we get swiss cheese bases that you can't defend all that well and spawn camping since most bases don't have SCUs...
    • Up x 3
  16. Sekaszy

  17. McToast

    That's why I like Amp Stations. You have to overcome two obstacles with infantry to be able to get vehicles near the capture point. As long as the defenders have the better/bigger (in PS2 bigger is better >_>) footzerg vehicles can't do much besides blowing up some turrets and driving around the base. There might be some lone harassers who enter through the back, but I find it perfectly balanced.

    And that's what's wrong with the esamir base design. There should be ways for infantry to defend against vehicles, but not by walling bases off. Make shield gens that have to be overloaded by your own infantry before your vehicles can enter the base. Esamir just isn't fun for vehicle drivers. Walled Amerish will be even worse.

    the Toast
    • Up x 1
  18. Lamat

    I like the walls. Although I'd also prefer having catwalks and stairways on them.

    One thing to consider is the changes to redeploy options making vehicles more necessary. there will be lots of vehicle combat between bases where you'll have to make vehicle pushes to get to the next base. I've had great tank battles in between bases on Esamir. The only real problem is when you destroy all defending vehicles and take over their vehicle terminal, and you only have a 5 minute timer if you leave your vehicle.
  19. Scudmungus

    As long as their are helpful arrows point to the entrance/exit..

    ..and damned step/stairs on the inside, allowing us to *easily* climb up and over said walls..

    ..I will cry less.
    • Up x 1
  20. The Shermanator

    Exactly what tankers have been saying all along.

    Separate the driver from the main damn gunner, forcing MBTs to have two (or even three) users to be combat effective. That has the potential to slash the number of tanks on the field by up to 50%, making infantry happy and clearing the way for potential buffs that tanks have sorely needed for a while now.

    Yeah, there are those who will seat switch. And in doing so, they will just make themselves even more vulnerable to every anti-tank measure in the game.
    • Up x 6