[Video] Base Design: The Case for Castleside

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by TheShrapnelKing, Nov 26, 2015.

  1. TheShrapnelKing

    Not that anyone will actually DO anything about it, but I decided to ramble on about it anyway in the middle of the night.

    This was honestly a terrible time of day to do this so I may give it a bump tomorrow if it just passes everyone by.

    Anyway I think changing the base design to an infiltrate-hack-breach-clear formula would solve a whole whack of problems including spawn camping, zerg tactics, bases being indefensible, and delegate proper class roles; infiltrators and light assaults would be an absolute NECESSITY for taking a base, since the Heavies would be stuck outside until someone opens the gate for them. Defensive positions would also be enclosed, turret-heavy fortresses such that they are proper places to defend from and not simply cert pinatas for HE tanks.

    I am of course on hand for clarify, expand, debate and absorb mockery as required.
    • Up x 1
  2. Bindlestiff

    I've always found it strange that there is a huge effort made to fortify bases (e.g. Tech Plants) and then leave so many ways to get in that you might as well just point the control point in an empty field.

    I'd welcome a more structured approach to base capture.
  3. Demigan

    I've been making my own vision on something similar: Security Consoles (SC's). These consoles would do anything from preventing turrets and terminals under it's control to be hacked to creating sunderer no-deploy area's, create shields on doorways and more. SC's would be destructable with small-arms fire. This means Infiltrators and LA's can use their high mobility to quickly take out these consoles and strip the defenders of their advantages.

    However what you are missing is incentive for the defenders to use other classes and get a more varied class setup. Defenders would, in your defensive castle structure, still consist largely out of Heavies because they are simply the best for pushing off attackers and making way for a few support classes such as infiltrators to retake terminals (not to mention just gunning down any hapless infiltrator moving through a shield to hack the terminal).

    So as an addition the attackers need a bunch of assault equipment. I was thinking of Calldowns. You place a beacon and shortly after a small structure of varying size (from a small crate to MAX size) replaces the beacon similar to how a turret is spawned in.
    The Calldowns would perform all manner of advantages for the attackers (and defenders if they choose to use it), similar to the Defenders (more freely given) SC's. From a resupply pad that resupplies any vehicle on it to a droppod beacon that is open to everyone in the empire to spawn at similar as a Sunderer, only without the option for resupply or changing classes after you drop in (and more easily destroyable with small arms weapons). These calldowns could also be used for your castle idea: you place them near shielded doors to change them to your team/make them passable by all teams.

    With the right functions on Calldowns, the defenders would have similar cause to track down and destroy them with LA and Infiltrators, opening up the way for a more varied gameplay where more classes are used.
  4. Taemien

    Ok first thing's first. Lets get some honesty from the OP. While I agree with much of what you said in the video, the first 45 seconds were in my opinion, unnecessary.

    1. "I play PS2 alot, more than I should."
    2. "PS2 isn't a great game, its mediocre at best."

    And the excuse given is "there is no alternative."

    I'm going to be blunt right up. The only reason you are making such an excuse for that statement is because you do geniunely like PS2 alot. Its a great game. You're just trying to bandwagon with others so you don't seem weird. You play 8 hours a day, and feel that if you spend at least an hour a day bashing it, that you're justified for playing it 'too much' as judged by other players.

    Come on now. Just be honest with yourself and with all of us. You like PS2, nothing wrong with it. Its a great game. Great games can have flaws, great games can tick you off once in a while. But one thing great games have in common, you can't put them down.

    For example, Super Mario Bros. 3 was a great game. I spent countless hours in my youth playing that game. Same thing with Castlevania 2 and many other NES and SNES titles.

    So why do I bother going on this tangent? So we're having an honest discussion. I don't want everyone discussing under false pretenses. Just be honest, and say we're trying to make a great game better. Its not difficult and its not wrong to love this game. And its definitely not wrong to want to make it better.

    I'm not trying to say you can't voice an opinion. Its just that I don't think you're expressing your actual opinion on the game in those statements. And that could detract from valid points we or you wish to make. Cause like I said, I agree with the idea of base overhauls and new mechanics.

    Now to the subject at hand.

    I do agree with your description of a castle-like structure to bases. And I particular like the idea of class roles becoming necessary for base capture (and defense). Mainly because it reminds me of the base assault mode in Tribes 2. Where you have to drop generators one by one to get closer and closer to the objective.

    Here's what I'd like to see personally in bases:

    1. First thing's first. No two bases are the same. Alright this might be tough to do. But at least on a continent, make every base unique. But this goes further than how the base layout is. It goes on to how you capture or defend it as well.

    For example, some bases have one control point. Some have 3. Control points will be changed so they require 2-3 players to stand on them in order to cap (attackers only). Of course in such case control points are hard to snipe into. You gotta get in there and fight to take them.

    Some bases have no control points. That's right, no control points. Instead they have generators that protect in layers. In the center is an SCU, drop the SCU and in 30, 45, or 60 seconds the base flips to neutral (NS color). After this happens the faction who brings the SCU back up controls the base (assuming they have nearby territory).

    Satellite bases return. These control points have long flip timers (about 20-30 seconds). Once you flip the control point, the base flips immediately and opens a new spawn area for you. Some Amp Stations have this. I like that mechanic.

    Maybe some bases have terminals (like 4-5 of them). Hack all the terminals and you cap the base. Anyone can hack the terminals, but infiltrators can do it in single digit seconds versus 30 or more seconds for anyone else. Sweet.. now stalkers have a use! Imagine sending a squad of them ahead a minute before you cap a base.. they get into position and drop the next base instantly. Opening gateways and pathways one base back for immediate assault. Forcing previous defenders to redeploy to their warpgates instead of one base back.

    2. Base design takes weapons into account. Right now CQC is king. In many cases you can load up a shotgun, SMG, or carbine and do well at just about every base. Assault Rifles do alright, as do LMGs due to their accuracy and volume of fire. But Battle Rifles, Scout Rifles, SASRs, and the fast chamber BASR's suffer in the 40m> base engagements.

    So make new buildings that are huge. They simulate open terrain while allowing such weapons to be used without much interference with vehicles. We're talking 200-300m on a side buildings. Now they have bits of cover in them to allow approaches, but long avenues of running from said cover points. Allowing those with long range weapons to pick them off at a distance. CQC will still work, but you have to plan it and make it happen. It doesn't happen for you like it does now.

    3. Vehicles need to have a role. Destructible walls, ceilings, floors, bridges, tunnels, ledges, platforms, bays, garages, ect. Basically structures that take damage and when destroyed they either make base assault easier by opening new pathways, or make it harder for defenders by closing off avenues.

    These structures would be heavily resistant to infantry based explosives such as C4, Tank mines, grenades, and rockets. You could drop a wall with like 40 heavies dropping 4 rockets a piece. But in reality you'd want a couple of tanks to drop it in a few shots. Well more than a few shots. It shouldn't be too quick, as it could allow for the defenders to respond.

    But the idea is to have vehicles participate in the battle more than shelling a spawn. In fact spawn rooms in my designs would NEVER be expose to vehicles. In fact this comes with a double edged sword. Since they aren't exposed to spawn rooms, you can no longer engage vehicles from the safety of the spawn. Its fair for both sides.

    Can these structures be repaired? Absolutely. But the engineers will have to repair from angles that makes them vulnerable to infantry or vehicle attack. They need to be protected. The idea is while you can repair them. You really don't want to be at that point. Best to have your own vehicles ready to defend.

    Combined Arms will be necessary for attack, as well as defense.

    4. 3 Dimensional Combat. The Light Assault is the weakest class in the game, despite all the destructive power given it. Why is this? Because its flanking capability puts it on TOP of buildings instead of IN them where the action is and the objectives normally are. I'd change this.

    Now there are tubes, tunnels, walkways, and ledges that lead to control points (in multiple buildings) that need jumpjets to traverse. Attacking a point means you are vulnerable to defender LA's picking you off unless you utilize your own LA's to stave them off. This is a double edged sword too. Defenders lacking LA's will be vulnerable to attacking LA's as well as they move throughout their bases.

    No longer are LA's just ESF bait. Well.. not entirely. If ESFs and Libs bust open ceilings and tunnels (see 3.) then you'll be vulnerable. At least on the top parts of buildings. The idea here is to make everyone look up, down, as well as forward and the sides. Maybe even occasionally have to watch their backs.
  5. breeje

    meh maybe only why are we staying with this game
    well cause it's the best out there

    can it be better, absolutely but is it really necessary to enjoy this game
    no and until there is some real competition with for PS2 there will not be a big game change
  6. InsaneLinguist

    The sad thing is Planetside's (1) bases were actually defensible, control console was deep inside the base protected from vehicles and air, tight corridors with a lot of cover; if you got past the fact that all the bases had basically the same-ish layout main difference being the location of the control console. Bases were either capture and hold (took 15 minutes) or required doing a LLU (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=LLU) run, or if the defenders were dug in too well, you could get the base by starving it of resources (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=NTU). Too bad the devs have chosen 'Battlefield but bigger' approach instead of 'Planetside with better graphics and improved gunplay'.
  7. WTSherman

    I do agree that the focus of a defense in Planetside should be on keeping the enemy entirely outside the base rather than fighting within the base itself, and as such strong perimeter defenses along with a layered perimeter that allows defense-in-depth would be useful. At least, for the bases that are actually meant to be hard to take. The analogy of a castle somewhat captures this philosophy (for example, many castles had an elevated inner wall that was designed to fire down on the outer wall in the event said wall was captured). However, as far as specific designs go the Trace Italienne is more appropriately designed for defending against an enemy who has short-range guns and low-velocity cannons, such as what we have in Planetside.

    I disagree with putting the capture point right next to the spawn room though. While it would certainly make bases easier to hold and re-secure, it does so in a way that is far too blunt and that obliterates any tactical possibilities. When taking the base depends entirely on a single capture point that is directly adjacent to a permanent spawn point, the only way to take the base is to lock that spawn point down with a hard spawn camp for the entire duration of the capture.

    That in turn means that any successful attack will hinge on bringing overwhelming numbers to establish a hard spawn camp as fast as possible. Nobody with half a brain will want to attack a base that already has people in it unless they outnumber them enough to steamroll the defenders with minimal resistance. Instead the primary tactic will be to gal-drop on unmanned or undermanned bases, lock down the spawn point ASAP, and proceed to camp for the entire duration of the cap timer. Since the point being buried deep within an enemy-controlled base will also make counterattacks from outside difficult, there will be few viable options for re-securing a base overrun in this way except to bring an even bigger zerg and MAX crash out of the (still camped) spawn room.

    To counteract spawn camping we need two things:
    1: The attackers need to have other things to worry about besides the spawn room.
    2: The spawn room needs to stop being such an ultimate re-secure beachhead that both teams are forced to plan entirely around it.
  8. TheShrapnelKing

    I didn't say I don't like it. But I'm under no illusions it's a great game. Battlefield 4 in its current state, having been patched and beefed up with DLC, is in a far more polished and qualitatively superior state, I simply refuse to hand over more than $100 for the DLC required to make the game not suck. For me, personally, the gimmick of PS2 being huge is enough to make up of everything else wrong with it. But there's so many other flaws that if you don't value scale so much, I can perfetly understand why many people end up quitting the game. And I think it's important to admit that.

    The game doesn't have to be mediocre and only appealing to some people; improvements like this could make it more palatable. But I'm saying it's potentiality - as it is, the game is chock full of bad design decisions.

    As an analogy: I love the Expendables. They are terrible movies, they really do suck, but I can ignore it sufficiently to have fun seeing a bunch of action heroes go on an 80s nostalgia trip. But if you're not devoted to just seeing that, I can perfectly understand why one may not like them.
  9. Obscura

    The game has enough over sized out of proportion structures already:eek:

    Honestly I wish they would have designed the bases with more smaller buildings with windows and what not(like a bunker) spread out over a larger distance, fights would be alot more fun and dynamic because fights wouldnt based around the X amount of chokepoints in a base like in tower fights
  10. Taemien

    Are we playing the same game? What structure do you consider oversized?


    That is a real life military structure. Nothing in PS2 comes close to that size.
  11. Obscura

    Yeah thats fort hood, and it's not just that large building in front there are lots of smaller structures around that building as you can see in the picture that are apart of fort hood. Which goes back to my original point, most bases consist of one or a few huge buildings, and not enough smaller ones surrounding it.
  12. Taemien

    I think you're (well not just you, pretty much everyone) misusing the term base in this case.

    In PS2 a 'base' is really a small compound. If they wanted to have realistic sized bases, then the whole continent would be one small base.

    In this case, the HQ building I showed is a single building compound. Those other buildings are 500-800m away. I know, because that street behind it is Battalion Ave. I know every square inch of that road. I ran it for pretty much my entire enlistment when I was stationed there.

    What I'd like to see is even larger buildings, internal complexes. 200-300m on a side. Maybe even 100m high or larger. This would allow for long range weapons to shine without being in the thick of vehicle based combat.
  13. Obscura

    I think a base in planetside 2 is just a general term used to describe the main building in each territory and the buildings encompassing that main building. The majority of most of the battles in planetside 2 take place outside of the rooms and areas that hold the capture points, I'm saying the structures in we have in bases are clunky and oversized, there needs to be more structures in each base and the structures sizes minimized.

    That HQ building is not a compound, it's just a single building, a compound is a cluster of seperate buildings. This is actually the size of the area described as fort hood, it's huge. It's like if you take the biolabs, tech plants, and amp stations and combine them with their satelite bases into one territory.
  14. \m/SLAYER\m/

    there a numbers of good bases on Hossin, but "bad bases" just ruins interest. yes, those bases not covered from the air units. but let's be realistic - devs releasing bugs from test server.. i think we should make Community Made Continent and make this game better :D