Base Design Philosophy: Defensibility

[CodeVertigo]

I made this thread on the Official Forums, but it appears that threads get buried pretty quickly there. In any case, I saw that there was some pretty decent discussion here, and I'd like to see what you guys think about this. Here's a link to my original post.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/base-design-philosophy-defensibility.67960/

[p0intman]

defensibility is something they apparently want to nerf hardcore at any chance they get. don't expect much else, ive learned to keep my mouth shut about any place that can be used as a choke point against an approaching enemy, because every time I, or any other member of PG uses it smartly, it gets nerfed at a rapid pace. /bittervet

[CodeVertigo]

defensibility is something they apparently want to nerf hardcore at any chance they get. don't expect much else, ive learned to keep my mouth shut about any place that can be used as a choke point against an approaching enemy, because every time I, or any other member of PG uses it smartly, it gets nerfed at a rapid pace. /bittervet

I see. Could you give me some examples of when they did this? I'm genuinely interested.

[p0intman]

techplants recently got nerfed because people were learning to use their layout to farm at.

scarred mesa skydock recently was overhauled from its former status as being able to be taken only by air

biolabs now have raised landing pads for jump pads, along with a few other nerfs to their defensibility but they mostly came pre-nerfed.

how many other examples do you want? shit, ive got a list somewhere to boot.

[Canaris]

base defense and infantry fighting, the dinosaurs of planetside 2

my own opinions on the matter are well documented

[Sturmhardt]

Yeah..they seem to hate defenders. I am gonna adapt and only attack in my he tank and farm infantry from now on, it seems like the devs want me to :rolleyes:

[p0intman]

~in theory~ if general usage of infantry for combat were to decline enough, they'd be forced to show their hand and act to rectify the problem.

There is a way to exploit this theory if done on a large enough scale to force SOE's hand.

Again, ~in theory~, I am suggesting saying fuck infantry and using only liberators, heavy tanks, and lightnings with HE ammo on a mass scale so as to magnify the issue several fold in order to force a resolution.

Or you could do like me and not log in much anymore, and go play other games like EVE or WW2OL

[Canaris]

~in theory~ if general usage of infantry for combat were to decline enough, they'd be forced to show their hand and act to rectify the problem.

There is a way to exploit this theory if done on a large enough scale to force SOE's hand.

Again, ~in theory~, I am suggesting saying fuck infantry and using only liberators, heavy tanks, and lightnings with HE ammo on a mass scale so as to magnify the issue several fold in order to force a resolution.

Or you could do like me and not log in much anymore, and go play other games like EVE or WW2OL

while in theory I like it, however that would mean I'd be as bad as all the people who never get out of their metal holes..... shame but it might just be the former and I'll go play else where until SOE figure out there's more to planetside than cars and planes

[Rahabib]

it seems that lately they are gimping defense (moving gens outside etc.) instead of making bases more defensible. so yea, dont expect anything.

[Crator]

Arclegger has recently shown interest in more defensable designs. He stated in the thread that they did not have enough time to do all these things before planned launch.

Check here: [Suggestion] Outpost Spawn Design (based on existing building) (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/outpost-spawn-design-based-on-existing-building.65475/)

[Aaron]

I heard Clegg likes it when defense suggestions are illustrated visually. That's probably the best why to get your idea across.

But I'm hoping they'll focus on base design after finishing the next cont.

[maradine]

scarred mesa skydock recently was overhauled from its former status as being able to be taken only by air


This is the one that pisses me off. Skydock was a gem to assault and hold.

[Whiteagle]

This is the one that pisses me off. Skydock was a gem to assault and hold.
Hey I complained about that in BETA!
It's horrific when you have a base that CANNOT be approached by Infantry, period.

[p0intman]

Hey I complained about that in BETA!
It's horrific when you have a base that CANNOT be approached by Infantry, period.

Sure you can.
2x galaxies, both fitted with mortars on either engine/wing section
12x troops for each galaxy, minus 5 people each (1x pilot, 4 gunners (2x wing gunners, 1 tail gunner, 1 top gunner)) equals roughly 14 guys on the ground securing the base with two orbiting galaxy gunships able to cover the point/spawn and any other buildings/areas around the base.

As for spawns, have a sunderer set up at the bottom and use a galaxy as a lift transport once the immediate area is secure if anyone dies. if done properly, one spawn beacon with proper placement for each squad should be enough for each team. the squad leader should never also be the galaxy pilot or one of the main gunners for this reason.

Taking it isn't that hard, this was an unneeded nerf.

unless of course, the people defending it were better organised than you and had fucktons of AA in which case, your life as a pilot was made miserable.

Either way, a step backwards for the game, because, my fucking god, a base in an MMOFPS that requires a level of teamwork and personal skill to take is horrific and absurd.

[Whiteagle]

unless of course, the people defending it were better organised than you and had fucktons of AA in which case, your life as a pilot was made miserable.
Yes, because people don't just camp there with AA or anything...

[Rivenshield]

This thread makes me sad. :(

I frankly don't have anything to add to what anyone else has said.

[Figment]

Arclegger has recently shown interest in more defensable designs. He stated in the thread that they did not have enough time to do all these things before planned launch.

Check here: [Suggestion] Outpost Spawn Design (based on existing building) (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/outpost-spawn-design-based-on-existing-building.65475/)

He's one of the non-PS1 new recruits in my outfit, he knows about my work nd Arclegger's comments (suggested him to contact Arclegger himself with his thoughts and ideas before :)). The nice thing is he comes up with similar stuff on his own. :)

And he shares the opinion of PS1 vets and no, he was recruited on showing initiative, not on how much PS1 he wanted in PS2. :P

So much for the "new players aren't anything like us, the game must adapt" theory some people have always clinged to for defending "it's a different game", what? ;)

[Crator]

^ Well, good to see the support for these ideas! They make a lot of sense.

[maradine]

Yes, because people don't just camp there with AA or anything...


They do. You run a galaxy low and up the gut, drop a squad of HAs, and crack their MAXs like lobsters. I relished leading that run, win or lose. High risk, high reward, binary victory.

[Mordelicius]

They don't want static defense where kills can be farmed. Players will earn XP too much and they lose out on that.

The best solution is to allow the great XP-kill-cooldown mechanic. Basically, each players should only give XP after 2 or 3 minutes after dying. The player who died also wouldn't get kill credit 2 or 3 minutes after death.

With this, they can make the tightest defensive bases and still prevent all the kill farms. This also makes player avoid death since they won't be able to get xp if they keep dying. Of course they have to adjust the Cert points commensurately, but I think this would be a better mechanic.

Lastly this will dissuade all the Aerial kill farmers. They have to wait 2-3 minutes before they can farm all those infantry they just spam killed.

[p0intman]

They do. You run a galaxy low and up the gut, drop a squad of HAs, and crack their MAXs like lobsters. I relished leading that run, win or lose. High risk, high reward, binary victory.

This, there was actual logic with the platoon loadout I put in my last post specifically designed to counter an active defense of the skydock, based on experience and game knowledge.

[Figment]

They don't want static defense where kills can be farmed. Players will earn XP too much and they lose out on that.

It's funny how in doing that they went so far they created attacker farms.

[Wahooo]

They do. You run a galaxy low and up the gut, drop a squad of HAs, and crack their MAXs like lobsters. I relished leading that run, win or lose. High risk, high reward, binary victory.

THIS 1000X

Because taking the skydock felt f-ing awesome. When you won you felt like YOU WON. All the AA and ESF's from both sides harassing and protecting the Gals. And the selfless GAL pilots picking up their platoons along with the parts of the zerg. It took coordination, team-play, and All the elements of the game to succeed and it FELT GOOD to take it. It felt like winning when you took it. Now? park AMS at jump point and rush numbers until you take down their AA and then let the LIBs camp their spawn... yeah another *yawn* PS2 style victory.