So I read the forums on occasion (duh), and often see complaints like: "__ is OP," or, "__ is ruining the game," and so forth. Most of the time people think a direct buff/debuff is going to solve their problem with no repercussions, or will simply cater to their play-style, but obviously this isn't always the case. It made me begin to think about what a majority of the community would agree on. Here's one thing I think could change to benefit the entire playerbase. Lattice and base design! Right now there are no real objectives for vehicles at the base structure outside bombarding enemy spawnrooms and/or lines. Points tend to be within walking distance and often have absolutely no vehicle access available to them. I've always been curious to see a lattice that has at least some bases with points/objectives spread out across the entire hex, with things like trenches/buildings/garages set up both in between and at the objectives. Instead of just having infantry exit or teleport from the spawnroom to the point, give them a spawn building with a surrounding area that is far more defensible but force players to have to travel to get to objectives. Perhaps no-deploy zones can be specific to points instead of spawn rooms, including spawns on gals and beacons, with the intention of having fights occur in between these zones. This could be supplemented by making point radius much larger, allowing for people in vehicles to count as capping, having a mixture of both long stretches with scattered cover at the point and condensed, CQC zones. If pulled off correctly, there would be more reason for long range infantry weapons and vehicles without disrupting too much action in the CQC front. What are your thoughts? Do you agree? Am I a total idiot? Is VS/NC/TR's HA/MBT/MAX totally OP? (It's not relevant but it will inevitably be mentioned anyways.)
If you want the best, imo, examples of how bases in Planetside 2 should be, look up any post by Figment. The guy has an awesome knack for this kind of stuff. An example: https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2/index.php?threads/ps2-tech-plant-complete-redesign.212417/
In PS1, the spawn rooms were deep inside the bases and well protected. You had to fight your way to them and bringing down the tubes was a major strategy. Much better than the current setup.
Wouldn't work for PS2 for a couple of reasons. 1. Developers can't build bases/structures underground. The engine doesn't allow it. The only way they were able to do it for certain bases in PS2 was by raising the structures upward and then building underneath it, but they posted screenshots of what happens when they try to make a tunnel below a certain plane, and it caused the terrain to warp into a U/donut shape. If anyone can comment more on this it would be better than me trying to explain it, lol. 2. There is no base resource system in the game. So having underground tubes would probably cause massive stalemates. If the tubes can be disabled from the outside, like NTU silo draining, it would make sense. I know you're not saying they should do it or whatever. I'm just listening the problems with it. Problem 2 could be solved depending on what they do with the big update in September, but problem 1 is a limitation of the engine. If there is an alternative to this which does the same in concept, then great. But so far its hard for me to tell what else could be done. If anything, I would say the following things could be done to make base defense better/make more sense: 1. Beacons should not be deployable within a major facilities' sphere of influence. Just like you couldn't HART directly on top of a base, you shouldn't be able to just beacon and drop wherever you please. 2. Change some facilities to an interlink facility/give certain facilities automated guns. Considering the AI is in the game for the spitfire turrets, they could apply the same to base guns with automation but based off of a lattice link to something like an interlink, which would be an entirely separate benefit on its own. My suggestions do not require devs to make any adjustments to any of the geometry, it would be purely script based. At least, thats what I think. I'm probably wrong though :\
Skimmed through the post, looks like a legit stronghold and not the small defensive area we have right now. Besides liking the idea, though, I'm afraid of having too many assets in one area. That base would probably take up a ton of resources, and may hinder the design for the rest of the hex. I'd love to see something like that implemented, though.
For the larger facilities with satellite bases, the devs need to go back to the old "satellites have capture points" and merge them back into the main structure. Especially important for the bio-labs which are currently bottlenecks. All large facilities should have (5) capture points At least 3 of the capture points should be outside and away from the main structure. Only defenders can spawn at the satellites, and only if the respective SCU is intact. All large facilities should have horiz/vert generator mechanics in the mix. The main facility spawn should have a SCU shield generator, protected until the halfway point. Big advantages: Fights are now spread across a 300-700m diameter area, not 40-120m Defenders cannot turtle inside the main structure without losing after 20 minutes (if 3 of 5 held by attackers) Defenders can rep the satellite SCUs and use the sat spawns to rally Multiple capture points leads to a more organic tug-of-war, not "turtle up on the point"
I've always thought that very few points translates to a crowded fight, and having more points WOULD directly translate to people spreading out more. I think the only problem could be that, in a large battle, you'd still have a large group in a congested area. I think that making the cap area larger would make for a more interesting battle; maybe even allowing people to pull longer range weapons to hold point instead of the obligatory shotgun/automatic. I'd love to see both ideas implemented, some points should be strictly CQC, but perhaps some larger radius points could be added to spice up the ground game here and there. edit: I could've misinterpreted what you were saying, though.
I think the issue is that a lot of bases seem to have a battle flow designed for call of duty, and tend to be way too small, which turns into people clumping up and explosive spam. I agree with ScrapyardBob, and the change has the added advantage of giving vehicles more of a role in holding territory instead of just encircling the single spawn room and shelling it. In addition to merging satellite bases with the main bases, I would also like to see a lot of the terrain get flattened down a bit/vehicles given more power to go up hills so that they have a bit more freedom of movement, because right now playing a vehicle feels like you are always inside a narrow tube with no options for maneuvering.