[Suggestion] Esamir new base design - don't use walls, they are terrible

The new proposed base design for Esamir and later other continents looks horrible, with the same humongous, monotonous, ugly walls being thrown around all over the place. SOE, if you intend to try and restrict vehicles from some bases, please try NOT to use walls. If you really have to ban vehicles from some bases, use natural barriers or buildings instead of walls, or at least give the walls some uniqueness from base to base.

As it currently stands, the bases look completely out place on the map, with no real access to allow even the least vehicle combat, surrounded by huge ugly walls and fully clustered with small objects to try and provide cover for infantry, while the surrounding areas are largely empty. Instead of several small objects, try and use less larger ones to provide cover so the bases have a more whole look and are in line with the rest of the map.

Essentially you are completely disconnecting these bases from the game, with the rest of the map only serving as a 3D environment to transport yourself to the next base's mini game map.

These new bases currently look bad and will probably function very poorly. I suggest that that instead of straight out cutting the bases off from the rest of the map (especially with walls), you instead make the bases more similar to how the inner part of an AMP station looks, with buildings instead of walls restricting vehicle movement, but still allowing them to have some impact on the battle. You could also just make the bases similar to how the new bases on Indar look and function like and just improve on the design, since those seem to be doing a pretty good job of keeping tanks and aircraft out.

TL;DR: Walls make the new bases look ugly as hell and function poorly, using natural barriers and base design similar to AMPs or indar's new bases to keep vehicles out is far better as the bases actually feel like a part of the environment.

Agreed tenfold! I am also deeply concerned about the walls

If an obstacle is needed, it does not have to be a wall. How about:

* Fences (you can look through, you can't shoot through or just half of your bullets passes through)
* Anti-tank blocks (like these)
* Huts (clay, wooden). Not every building has to be made of metal! There could be towns originally used by civilians...
* Natural hazards (water, lava, toxic smoke, toxic waste... )

I always disliked Esamir but with the new base design and the stupid dome shields it looks like i really won't be playing Esamir anymore. I just hope they never get around to screwing up Indar as well.

What you refer as "Vehicles" are in fact Power Suits


Those Power Suits temporarily give you a (free ?) boost in Armor, Firepower and Speed while moving from base to base.
Once you reach your destination you can put your power suit aside, if it is destroy just re-equip it from the nearest terminal.

Walls are ugly please add glowing hello kitty fences because it will be fabolous then!!!11

Well while I like the new desings as far as i could see them, i would suggest to wait till we can have a look at the testservers.

Somehow the amount of walls can be disturbing, but we only had some short pictures of the bases.
So we have no Ideas of the terrain around of it, holes, ramps etc.

What i suggest if they buff the bases, buff the tanks dmg. So if a tank gets a position to shoot inside a base, he should get a higher reward.

Next, and because of this walls, they should think of a attachment /new cert for the Sunderer, something like a siege tower.
So you can build you are ramp over the walls. Let this thing deploy and and gain a armor buff, so its hard to destroy.

but well, i excited to explore this new bases, and AFTER that i might start to complain

I did say in my OP that the bases will *probably* function poorly. But based on the footage they gave us (and there was plenty to judge) the bases look plain ugly. Like, abstract art ugly. It looks like something from a 2002 game, if even that.

They should use buildings / natural barriers / ANYTHING BUT WALLS to keep tanks out. or at LEAST make them look nice.

I don't think that's too much to ask for, is it

the first base looked ugly yes, but it wasn´t finished. the other once they showed. well i like them very much. everyone was different, weakspots, up and downs, towns etc.

I think they try to get back ps1 style of bases but they also use natural cover and all sort of thing like that look at the FNO esamir video and youll see one base with giant walls but also multiples outpost with mixe of walls tower and natural elements

actually the new esamir will look much more natural with trees etc...

Go at 1:33:00 in the video and youll see thats their is much more natural asset into the game

here a ps1 base

Except planetside 1 is a 2003 game and planetside 2 a 2012 game. Walls don't belong in new games anymore, esspecially in such states. It looks ugly.

Out of curiousity, why does every base need to be the same? Why not have a variety? I.e, some bases on Esamir are walled, some are wide open, some are covered by terrain, etc etc.

Those wall got probably at least one good point: they will provide tons of flanking opportunities to Light Assaults

lol wdf?

You seem to be under the impression that what you're seeing is done... fly around the map a bit.

It's actually an elaborate plan to stealth buff Light Assaults by making everyone else enter or leave the base from a small number of openings.

/tinfoil

Pretty sure they aren't finished texturing the walls....

Or working on the bases at all yet

My general response to the current design, should they (god forbid) decide to keep it, is still the same;

Natural features? You mean like all the mountains and hills around the bases on Indar and Amerish where people just take their tanks, climb said features, and spam tank shells into bases?

Protection doesn't mean crap if there is a hill 10m away that is 20m taller than the base allowing you to spam away without impediment.

Actually before we go into what is good or bad about the changes, and how to do it differently. Wouldn't it be a good idea, to first discuss what kind of jobs/roles vehicles should have in supporting a base assault?

Here I am thinking that vehicles should have the following roles, and some quick suggestions, on how to forexample reinforce those roles:


Base Siege, suppression.
You want to make sure they stay in the base and don't push out. But to give meaning to this, there needs to be space inside the base, for the defenders to build up a sizeable amount of armor. This doesn't mean the armor in the base should be able to devastate attacking forces, while denying them vehicles. instead if we use amp stations as a role model think this:

The base is split up into 2 part. The Courtyard, with few choke points and obstacles, to make it hard to flank vehicles in the courtyard by infantry. And a few heavily fortified entrances, ripe with Phalanx turrets and blast shields. (in other words the most defensible part of the base, and the entrance infantry will not want to use to enter.).

And the base complex, where there is no space for vehicles, it is walled off to protect both the courtyard from attackers in the base flanking them And the attackers from being farmed by the tanks in the courtyard.

This can be a series of buildings much like how we see it at the fortresses surrounded suarva biolab on indar, or similar. The back doors leading to this bit, should be less defensible, in other words, not just a single choke point to spam fire at. but several small entrances, and objectives. to take the further you push in.

-The idea here is, to give defenders at a besieged base leeway to create armor to push out. And destroy the attackers spawns, thus creating meaning to using vehicles for defence, and suppresion

-Another important factor is, that the rear entrance is suposed to be less defensible, but only really accesable to infantry. You could forexample add terminal stations that if hacked open dors/take down shield to give the attackers more entrances to push through. Ifthese objectives are placed properly they could also create meaning to galdrops in these bases.


Blockading, Spawn defence:
One of the most underestimated tactics to defend a base, during big sieges, is for defenders to spawn back and flank the attackers and destroying all their spawns. Liberators are a good example for a vehicle that is devastating if used correctly for defending. But same goes really for all vehicles.

Currently alot of tanks just spawncamp, which i find sad, i'd see it more interesting to focus on protecting the perimeter, giving the infantry the time they need to take the base, and ensuring they can spawn close by.

Infact in planetside one, another aspect of this where "NTU's". NTU's can be considered the amount of fuel the base has, every action, from respawning, to reequipping etc. drained these slowly. If these reached 0, the base went neutral, and the attackers ussually won.

To prevent this, you had a small truck called an "ant", which could go to any warpgate, charge NTU's and then transport them to the base to resupply it.

-This is where blockading comes in. if these are brought back, a really critical part of big sieges is to have vehicles patrol the perimeter and ensure no such trucks make it through.

-To ensure that defenders have the option of "spawning back" to get vehicles from the ouside, it is important that there are surrounding facilities that accomodate this, like airtowers etc. and that there are roads and terrain that does not force these vehicles to take too long detours. After all it is meaning less, if the base is lost before you even get there. (after all for any person who "spawns back" there is one less defender to delay the attackers.


Closing thoughts:
I perfectly understand if people don't agree with the suggestions, but they aren't the main point anyway. Its just important to illustrate that it is possible to give vehicles a critical role in base capture, without them having to be spawn campers, to infantry farmers/suppressors.

Ofcourse this model also gives the defending infantry the role of "delayers". meaning without them using vehicles, they will not be able to push out of their own walls, but they will have the ability to ensure that the base will stand long enought for an platoon, to spawn back and strike at the enemy blockade/spawns.

Its hard to get right, and I believe that an extended siege, should always favor the attackers, (throught forexample NTU's), but still allow a well organised defence to hold technically for days, against an unorganised attack.(read pure zerg).

This should mostly be limited to big bases also. since it will suck if all fights are like this. Its also important to keep in mind that the latices will properly need to converge on these big facilities, so that it is hard to hack around it, without taking most of the continent.

Because for this defence to work you need to focus a certain amount of the total continental population around this base, without having the rest ghost capped. But thats a whole new bag of worms and I suppose this rant is already going enought off topic as is.

EDIT: had some trouble making this block of text readable, I apologise to any one who's eyes started bleeding. =)
Also posted this in the domeshield section, but honestly its properly too off topic there, and most fitting to post here.

I don't see what the problem is with lots of walls in bases. Walls are fine. Walls can be easily bypassed, walls are static, we know how walls work from daily life, walls of all kinds have been part of warfare since thousands of years. Walls should of course be in the game and used a lot. With one caveat, however.

Walls should be destroyable. Every single one of them.

As long as that's true, bring on the walls!