Planetside 2 Lore: Base Design

Setting: Auraxis, year 2642. Lieutenant Commander Brent Waterson is seated at a table with his top engineers. They look grim but eager.

Engineer Thomson: You wanted to see us, sir?

Waterson: Correct. Terraformation of New Earth will soon be completed. We need to start construction of highly defensible bases. There may be another insurrection at any time. After the insurgents destroyed Discovery-7 and killed Mission Commander Connery, those bases may be needed right away.

Engineer Thomson: Understood. The mining division has been forging steel from metals on Indar. The fortifications can be erected quickly.

Waterson: Excellent. Now, about their design... Each base must be a mini fortress, nearly impossible to penetrate.

Engineer Thompson: Of course. We can surround each base with walls - no, make that ramparts. Ramparts with firing positions that are covered for protection against…

Waterson: No, no, no. That’s no good. Ramparts have no place in military installations. Sure, we could have a random tower with a gate shield here or there, but walls with covered firing positions? Bah! Bases should mostly be open.

Engineer Thomson: Open?

Waterson: Open!

Engineer Thomson: What about air or vehicle attacks?

Waterson: How can you expect our men shoot tanks and aircraft if there is cover? It needs to be completely open.

Engineer Thomson: I’m not sure about that…

Waterson: And the buildings must be open, too. Large windows and doors, and plenty of ‘em. Oh, and balconies.

Engineer Thomson: Balconies?

Waterson: You heard me.

Engineer Thomson: Fine, sir. I’ll just arrange the buildings in a defensible pattern so those doors and windows –

Waterson: And balconies.

Engineer Thomson: …and balconies can be used tactically. I’ll also make the flow of the base suitable for defense. Crucial generators and control terminals will be well-guarded in central locations, close to our spawning units.

Waterson: Son, are you crazy? Spawn buildings have to be on one edge of the base, unsheltered. Important structures, like control terminals, need to be on the opposite edge of the base. And don’t forget, plenty of windows and doors.

Engineer Thomson: If you say so, sir. I’ll have my men work up the plans. However, it will take time to customize the design for each type of installation given their particular function and geographic location.

Waterson: What are you getting at?

Engineer Thomson: Well, each base should be suited for its task. You wouldn’t want to use all the same buildings at all the bases. Also, we need to take advantage of the surrounding geography. Use natural landscape for protection and utilize the high ground.

Waterson: Are you sure you're an engineer? Each base should have the same generic buildings regardless of function. And high ground and natural shelter just won't do. See, if we put bases so there are lots of mountains and hills around to shoot down on us from, it will be so much easier to spot the enemy and take them out.

Engineer Thomson: I’m not sure that makes sense…

Waterson: And did I mention plenty of windows and doors? We can look out of them to see their tanks.

Engineer Thomson: But…

Waterson: Yes, this is all coming together nicely. Those balconies are going to be great…

[Engineer Thomson walks out of the room shaking his head]

Waterson: Thomson, wait up!

Engineer Thomson: Yes, sir?

Waterson: You know those big domes with the shields that are pretty important for agricultural supply?

Engineer Thomson: Yes, the bio-domes.

Waterson: Make sure the enemy can teleport DIRECTLY into it. We can't shoot them if they're not in the base.

I'm putting a 1000 cert bounty on Waterson, any infiltrators interested bring proof of termination.

I thought this was hilarious.

But most of the "Bases" in the game are abandoned and converted civilian buildings, not military installations.

Joke
^
l
l
l
l
l
My head

I dunno... have you seen modern military bases?

They don't look like fortresses at all.

Instead they look like this:



That's Camp Pendleton, a US Marine base. I think it has a few chain-linked fences to keep the Reds out.

The reason why no one builds castles anymore is because with the introduction of heavy cannon, walls and fortifications are useless. You don't defend a base by sitting inside and shooting out (except as a last resort), you defend by attacking the enemy in the open areas outside your base before they get into firing range of the base. Sitting in one fixed spot is a great way to get destroyed by artillery or airstrikes.

So if building massive fortifications is about the dumbest thing you can do in a military base, might as well make it more open and spread out and save on that concrete bill. That way if it is hit by artillery, at least you won't lose everything at once. The above image is only a small section of Camp Pendleton, and you can see that it is surrounded by lots of nothing.

Bases also have lots of wide open areas and road access, because driving up to buildings and parking is sort of a thing that modern humans do.

In other words if you're holed up in a base and firing at the enemy who has already encircled you, you're doing it wrong. The only reason why PS2 allows such primitive tactics to go unpunished is that for some inexplicable reason cover in PS2 can't be destroyed, which immediately dumbs things down to a Medieval level.

Nanites.

Then how come I can't build my tank out of those same nanites?

Obligatory Kogoros comic.

Realism has no place in video games.

That said speaking as someone whom has actually taken courses in game design and specifically level design I think the main problem is the fact that bases in planetside 2 focus too much on pathing to force players to interact. This works for most games as when you've only got 16 players on a map you don't want them wandering around and never meeting. But that's the exact opposite of what Planetside 2 needs as it already has the capture points that force player interaction as well as the fact that you mostly don't have 16 players in a bass but 96. Which just forces players to bunch up and either enjoy plinking and each other or enjoy dying a lot.

tldr: Planetside 2 maps seem to be designed with small squad battles in mind rather then large battles which bases should be designed around as zergs make up the majority of gameplay.

Sure realism has a place in video games.

For example, if I shoot someone with a gun, they tend to die or move closer to death. That's a basic gameplay mechanic that is founded on realism.

If realism has no place in video games, then we might see the opposite of such a mechanic (I shoot the enemy with my gun and they get healthier) or an unrelated mechanic (I hum the first few bars of "Ode to Joy" and the enemy catches arthritis).

Realism is profoundly built into most videogames (even things like "Tetris" have basic realistic concepts of gravity) because it's modeled on reality. Humans understand reality because that's our world, and to make a game that so profoundly rejects reality would be a failure. I dunno. Like the Salvador Dali of video games or something.



Does that mean that video games should mirror reality exactly? Nope. But should realism have an impact in game design and mechanics? Undoubtedly yes.

In terms of PS2, the "unrealistic" gameplay mechanic of indestructible cover makes combat quite dull and boring. It all boils down to assaulting the capture point with infantry, digging them out with highly underpowered grenades or armored suits. That's not thrilling or fun because it reflects a very static form of combat. Same. Room. Every. Time.

Modern realistic combat, on the other hand, is much more interesting because it is fluid and dynamic. Flank or be flanked. Then outflank them again. No hiding in some boring little room for some pointless reason. If you're not attacking, then you're losing. Your goal is to kill the enemy, not hover over some glowy beacon like an overprotective mother.

Currently PS2 warfare is like this:



When really it should be more realistic and be like this:

My point for that statement was that designers should only care whether the game mechanic is adding to the enjoyment of the players NOT whether it is realistic or not.

*edit: I apologize if it seemed snarky but I've seen far FAR to many good designers make stupid choices for the sake of realism and it frustrates me to no end seeing people try to use it to back up their arguments rather then assessing if it will make the game more enjoyable.

Waterson you Son of a *****.

Speaking of him, why was the Octagon named Waterson's Redemption? Waterson is a tyrannical conniving scumbag, I find it hard to believe he ever did anything redeeming. "Fort Waterson" I could go with, but Redemption?

YOU DARE TRY ASSASSINATE OUR GLORIOUS PRESIDENT?! TRAITOR *Commissioner round to your head*

Lore base: Waterson essentially founded the grounded Auraxiam Republic, therefore the conniving son of a ***** became dictator of his own planet, ***** could name anything he wanted!!!

I wouldn't mind reading the part, where they discuss putting one base on top of another (Hossin), choosing paper as material for phalanx turrets, using free-for-all jump pads instead of ally-only or 2-sided shields instead of 1-sided.

Dear lord.. where to even begin..

Your example of modern military base is a USA one, on USA soil?
The country locked in on East and West by an Ocean, Canada (ally!) above, and Mexico below?
Against what exactly would it need to be protected from? Invasion from Japan? 1945 is over for quite a while now.

Shall we implement this base design in Iraq, in Afghanistan? Tell the South-Korean border military "see? now This, this is a proper military base"? Do you think, if the USA would be facing potential invasion, that this would be the base design they would go for? If an enemy base would be setup 800m further, within LoS, and able to fire at this base, that this would be the base design of choice?

Planetside 2 bases should be far more underground affairs tbh.
And/or walls protecting from shelling from the outside.
Those walls could be destroyable for all I care, as long as it takes a significant amount of firepower.
Another fun option would be shields instead of walls; each section of shield would have a generator.
Let's say, a base has 2 capture points, and 6 shield generators; each protecting 1/6th of the base from vehicle entry & shelling.




Edit:
I'd also be interested in the discussion between the weapon & armor engineers..
Whaterson: -Thomson! this suit allows the men to go prone! Disable it at-once!
Thomson: -But Sir! Our infiltrators and heavies with LMG's asked specifically for the ability to go prone to provide suppresion fire, with minimal exposure.
Waterson: -Nonsense! That's what crouching is for already!.


Waterson: --Tomson, you idiot, you've designed another supersonic aircraft haven't you?
Tomson: -I'm so glad to demonstrate this sir. At altitude, it can make mach 3, it carries radar guided and heat seaking A2A missiles.. it will clear the skies of those pesky rebels.
Waterson: -hmm.. those engines seem nice.. take them out, we're gonna make aircraft that fly max 220 km/h.
Tomson: -... uh what sir?
Waterson: -and our A2G missiles should fly no faster than 125 m/s! The primary means for air superiority is nose-gun hoverduels.

Actually, the only real reason you can do the latter is because you very frequently can't do the former; in saying that, the latter has to become an unfortunate reasonable method of gameplay. Not only is it perfectly possible to shoot at one base from another base, depending on positioning, but the way the terrain has been created often makes engaging the enemy between the bases stifling and cramped, where it is even possible to have a large battle in the first place. Additionally, the means and frequencies by which Planetside 2 forces engage each other would make such bases impractical.

Here's an image of US Forward Operating Base Joyce in the Eastern Kunar province of Afghanistan.

One minute later, two dozen Magriders descend from the mountains to the north, raining down HE as they go, followed by Sunderers raining and sliding down the mountain in droves. Most of the Vehicles destroy themselves by turning over as they descend the cliffs but more than half of them manage to deploy and seven enemy armies from half a world away flood the north side of the base quickly. And so forth.

He's going to make us lose this war it's for the good of the republic!

Well, for starters, no one and I mean NO ONE knows what warfare will be like in the 30th century or what-ever.

There is no rhyme or reason to anything in this game... it just is.

People constantly try and bring their 21st century sensibilities to PS2 and you just can't.

Now, all that said, there should be at least some suspension of disbelief to make the experience worthwhile.

Done, where are my 1000 certs?!

Here is the tyrant's necklace

Maybe this is why all the TR engineers went to go switch to Vanu....

Anyway, your dialogue was a very funny and good read.