"The base design is awful": explain why.

So, pretty much everywhere you see some random guy just coming into a thread, and suddenly drop:

"The base design is awful"

Whether you're talking about "flow", "infantry", "vehicles", "lattice", there will always be this guy just waltzing in, blaming base design for whatever woes the game has, and getting away with it.


Since it has been a long time we didn't get a quality talk about anything; what would YOU like to see changed about base design ? What do you feel is wrong ? I want to know how many people want tunnels, how many want walls, how many want open bases, courtyards, towers, cliffs, anything.

Elaborate.
In this thread, I want:

• Concrete examples
• Pictures
• Reasoning

Hard huh ? And don't pretend I won't find those on forums.
There's no other place to talk about it.

There has been already enough discussion about this topic, search the forum and you will find enough reasoning.

Bases are built to give advantage to attackers. You have bases like The Crown where the capture points are all decentralized to make it easy for attackers to lock defenders out.

As a result, people say the base design is awful. Which it is, but it's awful on purpose.

There is only 1 base type in the game that is worthy of the name and that is the biolab.

I fortified structure (base) should be defensible. With the exception of the bio lab none of the bases or outposts are designed with defense in mind.

Outposts: The spawns are usual a long walk from the control point (this is not a game breaker but certainly doesn't help) what is the game breaker is that that walk is open to tank and aircraft spam. Even when the point resides in one of this 2 storey buildings with 5 entrances... 5 and up to 6 windows for light assaults to ferret through, snipers to harrass through, grenades to be spammed and vehicles to spam into it is like defending a swiss cheese.

Amp station bases: While there are tunnels to get you into the SCU it is like trench warfare run at the attackers who are defending the control point from the higher ground. The control point is open to vehicle and even aircraft spam and has too many entrances to a tiny cluster **** space. You cannot setup lines of defense due to vehicle and aircraft spam.

Tech Plant: Tunnels that lead you up to get farmed.... The tech plant upstairs whilst an improvement over the amp station for point defense the addition of the balcony entrances without shield means that there are too many ways for attackers to take out your defense. The distance from the spawns is huge and you have to use the same entrance as the attackers... ret*rded.

What would help all bases and outposts would be those shields they promised (not the best solution but certainly the easy option as a bandaid for the knife wound that is the current bad base design).

While planetside 1 had proper bases and DOORS (i know they can't do doors because they are an AI and it would add to the problems with performance) you could not copy and paste ps1 bases as they wouldn't work on this scale. You could however take inspiration from them. Add a shield mechanic which can be hacked to allow enemies to enter, facility power generators, facility fuel (ntu), put roofs over the bases particularly on the spawn to control point routes wrap up the outpost into full on structures, choke points on a limited number of access routes to the control point.

Fights for bases and outposts should have the potential to last for hours. (feel like i'm p*ssing in the wind here... 3minute biolab timer... **** you SOE what idiot thought that **** up), the armour and aircraft roles should eb the fights between the bases and control of the court yard NOT spam this door while the timer ticks down.

I await the ret*rds and the following:

You are ruining combined arms shift1111111 imma just wann sit in ma tank allday huhuhuhu
You just want to farm in your OP scat max
I like to rocketpod because i'm l33t.

Spelling and grammer, I can't be ***** to check it anymore.

No, 90% of the posts are see are never informative nor constructive.
It's either "base design suks" or "add tunnels".

Example right above:

There's a false consensus about base design.
Everybody seems to say it sucks. Yet one half claims we need walls, the other wants tunnels, and a third half (wut) wants "combined arms"

- size of most bases - 3-4 shacks we get in most bases don't constitute enough layers for defenders, defenders overpowered in initial strike => defenders being spawncamped and there is very little in between. Judging by BF3 standards base territory should be 3-4km2 big to accomodate 200 people

- tons of 'convenient' elevated places to park MBTs right above the base allowing to shell it with almost no risk, from above the level AV turrets can retaliate. most spawnrooms in the open have huge rocks or walls right next to it which allows LAs and snipers to own even the top floors

- poor visibility from spawnrooms, greatly increasing hesitation of defenders. They should have much more windows (can be bullet resistant if you don't like that idiots are being shot in front of the spawnroom). It should not be possible to camp closer than 10-20m without defenders knowing it. Better visibility against lolpodders and libfarmators would be nice too. If you make it too easy to contain defenders, contain will be the name of the game.

- static defenses not resilient enough, don't buy defenders enough time to organize

- idiotic jumppads making end runs around the defensive structures like walls, making spatial control meaningless

If I was to make my own idea for new base layouts I would make an entirely new thread so I can get critiques about that idea only.

I am also not a level designer but you do not need to be a level designer or a designer of anything to say that it might be bad. Look at BRINK for example. I can see why the levels are how they are but they small cluster ***** and there's a reason people don't design a rectangular level made for spawns on the long sides and then put the short sides.

Part of the issue I have with bases in PS2 is the "run from one side of the base to the other" layout. Defending gens isn't rewarded and the layout of the bases (read very spread out) make it so that the only time people really tend to defend the gens is from 1 random person doing it or when a gen is already over run by enemy.

When you're defending a techplant and it's the last hurrah the most you can do is defend the SCU. This creates intense defenses. This is what shield gens should be like.

Some of the above ties into players not being in the right spots because of the XP rewarding system and such though. It's a complicated issue.

Oh and drop pods.

Why not all of them? Make each base different

One can have tunnels
The other can have walls
The last can have combined arms

Variety + pleased everyone

It seems to me like SoE decentralized the capture points/spawn rooms at outposts for the same reason that they added sunderer no deploy zones: to prevent one side from being able to spawn directly on the objective. I actually think this is a positive aspect of base design, as nether the defenders nor the attackers has to fight an uphill battle through solid waves of enemy players to clear enough breathing room around an objective to capture it. Such fights can be intense, but can quickly become imbalanced/impossible, which leads to frustration.

I guess you weren't here at launch, were you, buddy? When explosions' ranges were still unnerfed and all things AA had piss-poor damage, you discovered very quickly exactly how and why they are so bad on your own hide.

The sad thing is that the core problems remained unadressed all this time. Any and all 'fixes' were aimed at symptoms, not the cause.

All possible routes from your spawn to the control point are under HE fire from 8 different angles? Nerf explosion range, buff flak armor. Nevermind that the base is still sitting in a ditch surrounded with MBT execution squad.

Tech plants can be defended for prolonged periods of time against overwhelming numbers? Place the shield generators outside the base perimeter. Nevermind the galdrops to the second floor balcony and the poor forgotten shield diffuser.

Attackers can deploy a mobile AMS that is closer to the cappoint (and works two times as fast to boot!) than your own spawn is? Create an arbitrary non-interactive zone where vehicle deploy function doesn't work. Never mind that the uncovered area still leaves more than enough space to not change the situation in the slightest (and in case of AMP stations and some other bases, has a reliable workaround).

People use towers' spawnshields to ruin the fun for spawn-camping ESF? Make those spawnshields impenetrable from the inside. Nevermind how much easier it becomes to lock that spawnpoint down.

Use the search function better, OP. You will find lots of discussion. (Personally, I'd recommed Figment's thread.)

A couple of things I would like:

First

I don't want huge block walls , I don't want death trap tunnels, I don't want Anti-Air dome shields .. I want options .

I will use a Tech plant as an example ( and it's only an example ) since it's something SOE tried with tunnels but I'm not a fan of the implementation ..

RED being interconnecting corridors / buildings
Note: Pictures are purely example to hopefully illustrate what I mean more clearly



Now I have the " option " of reaching point B from A without going outside ..
Going outside is still an option and it will be a lot quicker but I'm not forced to take the route.
If I decide to take the outside option then it's on my own head if I get hit by an MBT/LIB and not the games by making it my only choice.

The interconnecting Corridors/buildings will also have a secondary benefit of artificially restricting ground vehicle access, but with out huge oppressive walls that shut them out entirely.

It's a concept that can be used on any base of any size



You allow players to make a conscious choice and once you do that their can be no excuse for complaining .. If you die to a Tank IT'S because you made the choice to put yourself in that situation.
But choice is something the game has never been great at in regards to base design ... People rightly ***** about MBT/LIB spam because interacting with them is the only " option " the game gives

Second:



I Would like a bit more variety .
A perfect example of this would be Vanu Archives, It's a base stuck atop a mountain and that's it.
Why not use the inside of the mountain itself ? Cut into the terrain and add interior floors , move the cap points to be located of separate levels etc etc..

Don't worry! More walls are being added as we speak!

I and several others suggested something similar with the area inbetween the two bridges to Regent Rock/Scarred Mesa on Indar. Either inside and or an exterior fire escape style vertical area between levels.

For indar it's the overall openness and free access that vehicles and vehicle explosive weapons have to the points and the inner area of the base. Which tends to mean vehicles have easy access to spawn rooms. All of these issues creates bases that favor aggression more than defending most bases unless you outnumber the attackers. Bases should inherently favor defensive fighting, since defense in and of itself has no real future.

Stronghold, while it may not be entirely perfect, is still a excellent example of good base design. The raised platform is enough to stop tanks from rolling right near the point, the walls have makeshift crenelations that allow infantry to battle it out with tanks, and the canyon wall behind it gave it partial cover from air. The only thing this base could do with is to be made larger and the spawn room position adjusted to somewhere more central and near the canyon wall face. Along with a few other minor changes, but otherwise it's a really good base.

An example of harmful base design? Indar excavation. The way it's set up, an attacker can put a sunderer right on points C and B giving them greater access than the defenders. The tiny walls don't do much to help the defenders either when vehicles are involved. Tanks or aircraft can easily kill the tanks that people attempt to spawn from it and they can prevent people from defending/getting to points B and C through the use of explosive spam. This base is easy to attack and hard to defend without matching an enemy force with both vehicles and numbers. There's no cleverness needed to attack, you just post a sundy up behind one of the buildings near B and post one up right on top of the building that houses C. You then murder whoever tries capping B (since this point is wide open) and you put a few guys in C to stop the occasional infiltrator cap since getting to C involves the defenders crossing a large killzone. Very little help for infantry to do their job and all too much access to vehicle explosives.

Esamir on the other hand has seen some interesting additions, but there's a few gaping issues with it. One being that the walls in this case are acting as a double edged sword. They both contain and keep out. To no benefit to either side. There's also the issue of spawn room position, terrain allowing vehicles to circumvent the walls, and air coverage in some bases.

Now that I've went over my thoughts, I issue the same challenge to you. Give examples and tell us why you think current base design is fine or not.

Of course you'll always get that guy, because the base design IS awful for "that" guy...Why? Because there's so many of those guys!

You got the infantry player who just wants MLG battles but can't because mr combined arms is throwing out splash damage ruining his fun..

I could give a million examples but in short, the design will always frustrate one type of person. When they added the lattice, it may have made some happy but it changed the game for the worst for others, when they add walls in Esimir it's changed the game, now one groups happy and another isn't. Adding domes will piss off pilots....The list can go on. That guy appears because it's a combined arms game, and his choice of play style is often dramatically changed.

It's silly to ask for pictures or whatever of what someone wants, because no matter what would change, it would always piss someone off.

The biolab is the worst designed base in the game. When you design a game around 100+ player fights, they need breathing room. Cramping them into a small constricted area leads to some awful gameplay like camping teleporter rooms and airpads.

First: My issue with the corridor issue, and I think devs have avoided them for this very reason is that. Well, it'd create a hopeless meatgrinder. 2-3 engineer AI turrets could hold down a fairly average sized corridor easily. Though, it could be an interesting form of gameplay as long as it's not the only option and the corridors thick enough with incremental cover inbetween both doorways. I'm still wary of this though. For it to favor defenders, spawn rooms would need to be centralized otherwise it looks like a long road for them to the tech plant's point or just using the tunnels

Second: Yes. But if you haven't already, check out the interlink facility on Hossin. Multiple levels, sectioned off for interesting and long battles, and just fun looking. I think you'd like it. I agree that each base should have unique features, multiple levels, and fun gameplay for infantry. At least most bases. Vehicles should and apparently will be getting outside objectives as well as deserving a buff if bases ever do get to a good state.

I have read many, many of these types of thread. The biggest problem with base design is people don't understand why they are designed the way they are. People incorrectly try to apply real world base design (or what they think is real world base design) in a gaming environment.

The bases aren't defensible or realistic! What army would design their base like that!?

Base design needs to be a careful balance between attacking and defending. In real life base design, it's all about defense. You want your base to act as a force multiplier (i.e. you want the base to force your attackers to bring upwards of 10 or 15 times the amount of defenders to successfully overrun the base). In real life, you want to force them to siege you for weeks on end. None of this leads to fun or compelling gameplay.

90% of complaints are from people who fundamentally misunderstand game and level design.

Case in point: The Tech Plant

The Tech Plant used to be the goddamn Alamo. During a double exp weekend, the only Tech Plant on Esamir changed hands twice. The entire weekend. It wasn't a fun fight, unless you were simply grinding certs. Then they redesigned the Tech Plants to make them less defensible. And oh, how the tears on Forumside flowed. Guess what? The Tech Plants are a lot more fun and compelling to play at now.

No longer is the Tech Plant a question of whether or not the attackers have reached critical mass to allow them to zerg through the back doors. The fight now flows and there are actual tactical gameplans available to both defenders and attackers. This game is better because of the Tech Plant changes. But ohmygod it's not defensible anymore.

The Crown v1.0 proves you otherwise. People flocked to it because it was actually fun to defend and it was a serious achievement to win it. The problem is all bases should be actually defensible, not be situated in holes that actively promote MBTs shelling all exits from the above.
Currently in most bases breaching the outer defenses is separated from spawncamping by 20seconds at most.

Maybe not, but they understand that looking at the spawnshields for 90% of the action because bases are that defensible is not fun. Just had a battle at Rusty Mesa. Vanu tried with relatively small force against our small force from the west and there was some back and forth. Suddenly 3 dozens of TR appear, push hard, park sunderer on the cap point, surround the spawn and from then it was all about 3:45 coundown. Why is that even possible to roflstomp defense and seal the deal in 15s?

Amp stations and tech plants are still Alamos but they utilize gimmicky mechanics like that gen whack-a-mole to compensate for the fact that a single cap point makes the whole attack/defense thing completely braindead simple. Once the seals are breached all the attackers have to do is to fortify at the perimeter of that point with everything they got and wait for the timer to run out with weapons pointed at the spawn exits. That's all there is to it. If you have enough people, you win.
Also 'more fun' doesn't mean you have to be able to park 5 sunderers, each closer to the cap point than the defender's spawnroom.

There used to be. The OLD tech plant 1.0 was awesome sauce!

Bio-labs are meh too... they flip too quick now. Plus some have a ring of walls/turrets surrounding them, except there's HOLES in the walls where you can drive a whole zerg through!