Originally Posted by Figment
Anything that ignores the ground terrain and can contribute from beyond a hill or high altitude, should be treated with a huge amount of scrutiny and distrust.
|
I've seen this argument a lot and I find it fascinating.
Base design is obviously key to the games flow, and their designers will put a lot of thought into how attackers and defenders will battle throughout a facility and it's surroundings, dictating the minute by minute game play each player experiences.
We of course currently see problems with spawn camping, and large forces completely crushing all resistance in a wave as they attack the base, and unless the defenders have equivalent population waiting for the strike they often do not have a chance. The obvious answer to this is to make bases more defensible, yet that makes them too hard for single squads to attack (try hitting a three cap base and you are in for a bad time as a single squad if there is any real defense).
Base designers also have to tailor each base around certain sizes of fight, a base may be good for a squad vs squad fight, but may give an awful experience with platoons fighting over it.
As has been mentioned we have the problem of vehicles either not taking a role (see Esamir) in base fights, or able to camp the spawn room from overlooking hillsides.
On top of all that you have the issue you mentioned of Light Assaults, Galaxy transports and in the future Valkyrie's negating the design of the base by placing infantry in unexpected positions.
However, I cannot believe that on top of everything else, base designers did not think of that potential; many bases now have underground portions where those are not options, while others have all kinds of vertical game play designed inherently in their core.
Giving players that flexibility allows them to be creative tactically, giving them options to avoid the meat grinder choke points if they can get in there and hold buildings, or the high ground.