Hidden Ridge Mining Revamp: Walls on Amerish

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

  1. Regpuppy

    To me, it looks like we could end up with a closed basement. Like in Nason's Defiance on Hossin. Had a full out base on top, with a point in the basement.
  2. maxkeiser

    This is really not a clever move. If I want to play compartmentalized infantry fighting without any vehicles I will play BF4 (or something similar).

    The WHOLE POINT of PS2 is the combined battles. PS2 is not a game about closed arenas with infantry fighting.
    • Up x 3
  3. Random Medic

    SOE, should you be reading this thread-- Don't just 'add walls'.

    The issues of Esamir are not the issues of Amerish.
    Esamir was quite easy to bombard a base into submission because of the flat terrain and ease of getting tanks to bases.

    Amerish is an entirely different animal from Esamir, with entirely different problems.

    Most bases on Amerish don't have issues with tank farm, because they hold high-ground positions that are already difficult to bombard. Very few bases can be surrounded 360 degrees on Amerish. Furthermore, the abundance of mountain passes make it easy to ambush and destroy armor before it arrives at the base. Overall, Tanks are in a good spot on Amerish as-is, and aircraft cover is a more pressing issue at small bases.

    Let's look at one of the most defensible bases on Amerish: Splitpeak Pass. This right here is an infuriating but fun base to seige.
    It has strategic gates at the passes, blocking tank advance, and a well placed shield generator to keep the gates alive.

    Learn from Splitpeak, SOE.

    At Splitpeak, tanks are not denied access to the base. Rather, tanks advance up the pass then deposit infantry to storm the interior and release the gate generator, allowing them to move in and secure the interior.
    Once tanks are inside Splitpeak they are no means safe, and the battle is not over. They are subjected to bombardment from above constantly. They don't just shut down infantry because the spawnpoint holds higher ground.
    This is a perfect example of a base with good combined arms. Tanks have a job to do, the infanty have a clear objective to do (The generator), and the defenders have clear defense points (The walls, the generator). Splitpeak has perfect ground game, the only issue is possible air game.

    Tl;dr: Very few bases are in need of Esamir-esque walls.
    Focus on high ground spawns, decent air cover, and don't deny tanks base access outright.
    Fighting for it is much preferable for everyone involved, and creates more exciting battles.
    • Up x 4
  4. asdfPanda

    Preach! Amerish is a good continent as it stands. However, that spawn room is actually above the walls. The walls are just a base. However, I personally don't like bases with foundations. I really hate fighting at places like the Stronghold.
  5. WyrdHarper

    That could be cool. I'm in love with Nason's Defiance; that thing is going to be the new old Crown and it is going to be wonderful.
  6. Nocturnal7x

    The base design is a ******* joke. Bases on esamir like this are just a farm, its great, the walls just make it harder for the people spawning to tell that they are spawn camped. What a joke.

    Get back to work clegg, try again.
    • Up x 1
  7. Armchair

    To me, that tweet in the OP implies that they're building a facility around the point. Those walls are probably analogous to the foundation of a house rather than a final product.

    Which is what the game needs. More structures to take with the footsoldiers and fewer random points in the middle of nowhere with a respawn shed nearby.
    • Up x 1
  8. SharpeShooter

    SOE we DON'T need this ****! We DON'T want wall!
  9. CF894

    My sentiments exactly.

    From my perspective, there is barely any point in playing Planetside 2 over Battlefield 4 at this point, much less paying for it. This is after playing the Beta for BF4..

    What does Planetside 2 have in its favor?
    - Huge factional warfare (with TR having a huge overpop advantage on my server nearly 24/7)
    - Huge continents in an open world (good fights are hard to find and as pointed out before, the lead level designer here appears very intent on splitting up the bases into smaller, Battlefield/COD style maps, which completely destroys any sense of a huge open world)
    - Sci-fi setting
    - ???

    What does Battlefield 4 have in its favor?
    - Actually well designed and balanced levels
    - Way more balanced (this is subjective but I feel that many people here feel the same way)
    - Not buggy and laggy as ****/it's actually well optimized (They've had like a year already and it still runs like *** on the best AMDs)
    - Doesn't get entirely, hilariously broken somehow with every other update, SOE apparently hires chimps for programmers
    - Spawn points aren't badly designed point farms
    - Destructible environments and levolution (Skyscraper on Siege, etc. Planetside has absolutely none of this and after playing Battlefield it feels very stale)
    - Way more cool gadgets (goddamn airburst grenade launcher that actually functions well)
    - Vehicles are well balanced (again, subjective, but its how I feel and im sure many will agree)

    I'm sure that, for some people, the appeal of an open world and a sci-fi environment will keep them in Planetside 2, and I don't blame them. It certainly does have some very unique aspects to it that sure can draw a crowd eager to spend money on shiny new guns. But, the more and more I play Planetside, the more disenfranchised I become with the game and its designers. The new walls and horrendous base designs on Esamir, Higby's dismissive and frankly idiotic response to the hilariously broken red dot sights and scopes, as well as his insistence on bringing MLG to the game when it's so badly designed for MLG play, and a myriad of other things have contributed to this.

    Once BF4 comes out, I will likely cancel my Planetside sub and not bother spending any more money it. Again, im sure many will say that SOE doesn't care about one person's sub, and they definitely dont, thats obvious; but judging from just the opinions on this forum and reddit, many feel the same way and will be leaving for Battlefield, at least until Planetside gets some serious changes and some specific people possibly lose their jobs. Not to sound melodramatic, but it's honestly a bit sad that its come to this. As a beta PS2 player, and 5 year veteran of Planetside 1, I had high hopes for this game, as many others did, only to have them fall apart.
  10. Larolyn

    Please. Just put the lattice there and leave the bases the f*** alone. Let's see how it plays out with just lattice first. No dome shields, no crazy amount of walls, just lattice. Amerish already has incredibly well designed bases. It does not NEED walls. It NEEDS lattice. That's it. Please, please, please, I beg of you. DO NOT F**K up Amerish. It has so much potential so long as it just gets the lattice.
  11. Dingus148

    The updated image does give cause for hope, that the whole base will be elevated. It doesn't solve the fact that there's a massive blind spot due to terrain to the north (allowing easy sundy placement and fire support), nor that enemies can approach from 4 directions with a significant degree of cover. While the new image shows more promise than the original, it doesn't solve the general base design SNAFUs of Planetside. Bases are not meant to be taken easily. They should give more thought to what areas of terrain are valuable, and plot bases and outposts around this...not the other way around.
  12. Cougarbrit

    Not even walls doe.
  13. Dingus148

    They are, but in a different form. That central area is a pit with vehicle access, and it looks like its where the point will be. You can see the two half-height walls allowing access underneath. Wondering how they're going to integrate that spawn, because it looks like it's in a silly place. So yeah...they're walls, but thankfully not the walls they've already tried.
  14. Axehilt

    While I mostly agree, hopefully we should also push for the reduction of infantry AV capabilities at long range. Because there are definitely many walls in the game currently where a zerg force can hold them indefinitely with AV weapons (due to catwalks and infantry's ability to get up on the wall to defend) which makes bases too advantageous for defenders.

    As long as the capture points are far from the defenders' hard spawn, then at least defenders (a) must deploy their own sunderers to have the strongest defense which means (b) the attackers can destroy sunderers to gradually make progress (assuming sunderer deploy locations aren't too defensive, like being able to drive up the inside of a wall's circular tower.)
  15. Axehilt

    The bigger concern is that they're completely revamping continents, rather than incrementally improving them.

    Complete revamps can fix fundamental issues, but they're going to be really rough first-draft style level design. Iterative improvements are basically the cornerstone of good design, but if you completely start from scratch it's not really the same as iterating. So we definitely need some effort put into known imbalanced bases to fix them.
  16. Dingus148

    The problem with infantry AV isn't with infantry AV. It's a problem with tanks being 1-man powerups. The introduction of multi-crew MBTs would allow buffs that would negate a lot of infantry AV's power. As it is, you can't buff tanks or nerf infantry AV without bringing back the heyday of tank spam.
  17. Locke

    There just needs to be lots of variety rather than lots of different shaped boxes. Walled bases have their place but shouldn't dominate the games design direction. Esamir has some nice bases but overall it's become a bit samey.

    I'd also like to see more successful implementation of themed bases. For example the Bastion has an awesome huge fortress wall that is totally inconsequential to the actual tower fight 95% of the time. If I was designing it I would have had the wall covering the entire pass and built the tower right onto it bang in the center of the pass and then added 2 "check points" at either end of it. How about some mountain top bio labs, tunnels cutting through a mountainside and maybe a valley forest area?
    • Up x 3
  18. DeadliestMoon

    False, the walls do not make infantry combat less fun.
  19. Axehilt

    Well heavy tanks not being a 2-man crew to begin with was a mistake for certain (one only has to look at the laughable MBT vs. Harasser balance we have currently to know that.)

    Bases themselves are the realm of infantry. The area between bases should be the realm of vehicles. This creates valuable, well-defined roles for each playstyle. Allowing infantry to win both inside and out just makes vehicles underpowered (despite costing more, having a cooldown, being huge targets, and being able to travel less places.)
    • Up x 2
  20. holycaveman

    The problem would go away if SOE let air fight armor. Like it should be.

    SOE could not balance a feather.

    So now because of tank spam(because of weak air support) we get walls and domes.

    Talk about SOE shooting themselves and us in the foot!

    Get a clue guys!