[Suggestion] Integration of construction into the game. By changing the hexes. And improvements in construction.

1. - Add for each hexa with one point a second point on the Theratorium for construction, preferably on flat sites. Make these points only for capture by infantry. For three-point hexes, do not bother. Remove the building hexes, making them normal bases.
2. - Reduce the construction restriction zone of all Warpgates to the dome of Warpgate itself. Also reduce the restriction areas for construction at Corona and Biolabaratory.
3. - Increase the repair force of repair modules. - Make automatic inclusion of invulnerability in the shield module when damage is received by structures that are affected by these modules. Make Solid Wall also receive this invulnerability (since Blast Wall receives invulnerability, although it does not have a shield).
4. - Remove the disconnection of the shield from destroying objects having a shield. Also remove the disabling of the shield from Vehicle Gate when receiving a certain damage.
5. - Make Cortium Bomb available only to the engineer.
6. - Remove Routing Spire from the construction.
7. - Remove Glaive IPC.
8. - Remove The Flail.
9. - Remove Orbital Strike Uplink.
10. - Remove Light Air Terminal (Because of it, a lot of High-class pilots neglect accurate piloting, and because of this they are not afraid to attack air defense and infantry, as they will quickly receive a new aircraft and quickly return to the battlefield). Light Vehicle Terminal does not require removal since ground transport does not have such an advantage over aircraft.
11. -Remake the Blast Wall by removing the stairs and adding a passage shield like the Vehicle Gate.
12. - Remake Vehicle Gate by removing the ladder and moving the repair point to the terminal that is above the ladder, shifting it below.
13. - Redesign Rampart Wall by increasing the height to Solid Wall.
14. - Add a kind of barbed wire to the very top of the wall from the outside (or a strip of red shield) that would inflict damage when it hit both the enemy and the ally. You could also get a new module for this.
15. - Solid Wall, Rampart Wall, Blast Wall, Pillbox, Infantry Tower, Sunderer Garage add high poles thick as a narrow part of Vehicle Gate, at the edges of these structures. In order to be more convenient to dock these structures. On these pillars, put spotlights like the Infantry Tower.
16. - Add a shield for all the tower from the shield module, like the Sunderer, which is replenished according to the same principle.
17. - Add a new module, a dome, the same as the Citadel Shield only with a stealth Sunderer diameter pumped to the maximum (or as before there was a shield dome), that would disconnect me when receiving damage only from infantry (not explosive). Which also does not shoot through from two sides. To protect Elisium Tube, Sunderer, and modules.
18. - Oppose the installation of modules, Elisium Tube and Pain Spire inside the Pillbox and Sunderer Garage.
19. - Add a module on which there will be an infantry terminal by removing this terminal from the bunker. At the terminal, the Allies will replenish stocks that require nanites, and take MAX for the price of 50% nanites, 50% cortium (the cost is as much as for nanites, just the price is divided in half, part is paid with cortium).
20.- Make Skywall Shield an Outfit Orbital Strike ban zone.
21. - Make a price at the Light Vehicle Terminal as well as with the infantry terminal. 50% nanite, 50% cortium.
22. - Add for Vehicle Ammo Dispenser an improvement in the continents grip on machinery repairs (if your faction has captured this continent and received this bonus then Vehicle Ammo Dispenser is also repairing transport)

! ! ! Mithril, please show this proposal to developers. Because construction is not so popular, especially now, and because of this it will not receive much publicity. Unfortunately. ! ! !

LOL, you should be the developer. The devs meanwhile have done everything possible to hurt frontline bases and support their router bases, hidden air production, corner bases like a piece of filth, removing the option to lock your Silo, making it die faster in the frontline and so on...

I've been maining construction for a long time as well. And I had a simple proposal for it in like 2016, which I still support till now, as a good basis. I noticed that it's missing guns. Construction does not have the guns to fight vehicles and neither does it have the defense to take heavy firepower....By adding guns you'd at least give it a way to fight back against vehicles, it's that simple.

You can supply this in creative ways. For example, add in every structure deployed ATGMs and autocannons facing the openings, to shoot out (obviously they should only fall once structure falls). But the better thing to do, would be to have it manually pulled from the ANT, just like you would with any structure, and place them like an Engineer Mana turret, where you would desire. These structures shouldn't have a restricted zone, allowing you to reinforce objectives with these unique guns, which could introduce new motorized tactics into the game. (Give option to lock/unlock turrets, squad, etc.)
And ultimately, once you have guns, then you can build in the frontline, and then more allies will show interest.

The easiest temporary solution would be to rework the turret limits. Make it so you can place 3 times, any turret (It'll allow for more designs). And lastly, nobody should be able to build near your Silo. Construction is a solo thing. It's impossible to create a good product, if multiple ppl are screwing up your design, and if you have a close friend to prearrange your plans, in the end you'll create a flawed outcome because of the size. I've already tried everything possible. With a close friend the best thing you can do is build 2 separate bases with a 200m distance. Arm the one at the back with a long range weapons to defend the frontline base. Never build a joint base, it adds more flaws because of the size. Construction is a Solo role....Unless it comes to the map redesign.
________________________________________

Btw about the Cortium bomb...You know, like we see a whole bunch of complaints on this item, but it is very obvious, you don't even need to raise awareness, it's right in your face.

I have a feeling the 'devs' are blatantly making mistakes on purpose. To make it appear like they are working on the game, to simplify their job.
Like they would have to be really mentally ret@rded to not realize that the Cortium bomb would annihilate the construction role, and keep it for an entire year. They must be doing it on purpose.
They deserve harsh criticism, not our thoughts and ideas.

.

2) restrictions supply for fights between bases, if they reduce, less people would build on the road so to speak
3) yes, repair mod should repair itself & it cant outrepair tank fire, while your also duel repairing the tower too, with repair grenades, so yes it's tot weak, updated more hp for turrets
6) no, cortium bomb for infil is fine, it's tough to use when not module bombing, module bombing is op, but cortium bomb should stay with infil, it's tough to use outside of this topic. really just need new construction to spot or shoot infils
7) no, more items the better
8) no, more items the better
9) no, more items the better
10) while I agree that you could say air isn't punished enough for dieing, you could say the same for pulling lightning tanks at vehi pad, tho ultimately pilots are the most underplayed class of the game still. & even pro pilots dont A2G much, they mostly just shoot other esf's / dogfight. so also no, more items the better. (maybe if they add a longer vehicle timer, before spawn)
11) yes good idea, no stairs, and that 2 panels of gate next to it, with nothing blocking the build path, the stairs suck, infils sneak by 12) vehicle gate doesn't need the stairs, looks out of place
13) I don't know about the height as of right now makes solid wall more unique, the problem is solid wall can't repair itself & gets 1 shotted during any os. Which would be " unique " if it wasn't so extremely vital to use solid walls to stop infils from bombing your skywall or spawn tube. So making solid wall not able tp repair itself, is further punishment toward the defender, when dealing with infil players. lame. Rampart wall has stairs that block no infantry. They need a new silly puddy item that blocks cracks or connects walls together with 10 feet stretchy glue padding.Or a new wall-filler piece.
14) la balance is fine, AI turret deals with LA good enough. The problem is LA. It's esf's who crash into your garage than c4 your skyshield module, to then flail your base. They may aswell give us more anti-infantry-mines to put around modules, that are silo supplied.
18) oppose? are you even a ant player? If anything, needs modules to be allowed in the pillbox on more terrains. It doesn't even help enough at all & most of the time doesn't work. Because of the hill or height of the building isn't enough.Also the sunder garage is useless if you really understand infil raids & trying to defend them. Plus if you have a shield module on, that's even worst. AI turret cant shoot through the shield module. So never put shield module near your sunder garage.
19) As for bunker terms. They are useless if hacked, they need take bunker term hacking off. Or else your forced to c4 your own term, right after its built.
20) That's going too far, they should be allowed to. 1 OS verses 1 Skyshield is hecka balanced. However 2 OS's verse 4+ skyshields is OP. So they need to fix that fact that if 20 people help build a base, than any 1 or 2 guys can double os the work of 20+ people. It's not balanced. 2 OS's against 4 skyshields destroys nearly everything built. While 1 OS verse 1 skyshield doesnt destroy much. So it's not balanced. 2 OS's should defeat 3 skyshields at most, but not 4+
21) sounds good
22) Ye the ammo tower is meh, it should repair too.

All I see is changes that change the PMB's back into their former murder-hole status which will usually be overwhelmed by a Galdrop or similar.

If you want PMB's to be good and fun for the gameplay it needs to be fun for both attackers and defenders. Trying to break into an enclosed base while every step of the way you are at a disadvantage is rarely fun.

You need to make sure that the builders of the base have incentives to make it a good and fun fight for both sides. From a satisfying gameplay for both friendly and hostile vehicles around the base to a satisfying way to both defend and destroy the key components of a base causing it to fall. That means deliberately creating openings in the defenses while building but still getting rewarded for it in some way, and still not giving the win to any attacker just for exploiting the openings.

I would look into some delaying objectives so enough players from both sides can arrive to get the fight going. For example a citadel-like shield that needs to be brought down by vehicles/AV weapons first, but whatever powers the shield can only be effectively hit from one particular angle and is placed outside the base, offering the defenders a way to pressure vehicles away but attackers to take the area.

Why take functions away from construction? Honestly, the slow charge up of the OS is a cool feature and much better balanced than the pocket OS. The flail needs work, which I have advocated for in the past, but the glaive is not IMBA.

Air spam is an issue, and I have advocated for half nanite cost in the past to address this. It does still need to be discounted to be valuable, but free to the end user is IMBA.

The vehicle shield being overwhelmed by firepower actually makes sense. Rather than taking this out of PMBs, I would add it to normal bases.

I actually don't hate the removal of routers. Many of this game's bases were not designed with routers in mind. In most cases the router is either overpowered or underpowered, but rarely balanced.

Regarding the automatic shield: I would like the option to make that automatic, but I also want to be able to hold it until a critical moment. Let me hold Q on the module to switch it between automatic and manual.

Cortium bombs: Don't coddle a bad idea. DELETE CORTIUM BOMBS!

Dome module is an interesting concept, but couldn't we just give spawn tubes more HP?

Of all things, you didn't mention pain spires? Creating exclusion zones in random places is OP. I said it in my own construction write, but I'll say it again here: Remove the pain spire, but add its function to the spawn tube. That way there is an anti spawn camping exclusion zone, but no random burn zones throughout the base.

The problems defenders have had to deal with, does not even come close to the problems (if any) attackers have had to deal with.

Not even a close comparison. I've never attacked a silo & been like " wow this is too hard to destroy " especially if I have 1 ally with me too. I haven't attacked silos much. Tho sitting in a tank taking podshots or pulling a sunder up to infil bomb, is 10x easier than what the defender goes through (plus less work for the attacker, no harvesting needed or build prep). To be honest bases should not die because of mid range tank pod-shots or infils w/ bombs or flails, silo's should die from squads having to use intelligent strategies.

If the builder has to plan / position everything perfectly (at the right scouted area) to even have a small chance to fight off tanks or infils, than the infils or tanks should have to also plan / position themselves perfectly to have a chance to defeat a silo. How is that not fair? Planting a bomb 20 times or shooting a turret mid-range behind a rock IS NOT PLANNING, nor difficult. So stop making excuses for attackers, pretending like silo's have EVER been anything close to " tough to kill " when that's a straight up lie. Silo's fall like butter in most medium popped regions. Even when not out-numbered.

P.s. Stop saying to remove stuff, do not remove anything, not even cortium bomb, don't nerf anything either. I'm a ant main AND a infil main, yet I don't bomb other player's silo's... I still want to keep cortium bomb for real battlefields. If anyhing I wish all classes had more tactical items to use, not less. Also I like that infils have the option to bomb bases. They just need to not be allowed to do it so easily, thus new items, new modules, new turrets, new walls to close gaps, new infil spotter lights, or crouch-cloak trackers near silos, while keeping everything, & nerfing nothing. & to the guy who said to remove pain spires, they already walk around them, that's the complete opposite of OP pal... Pain spires only kill noobs, not anyone above br 60... Also I like that I can put them anywhere, I don't want just a spawn tube version, the heck?! People's ideas to remove stuff has got to be the stupidest suggestion ever. We need counters, not removals, more content, not less.

P.s.s AV turrets need more 10% more hp also, farther range (when not manned), & higher repair %'s if being shot at from a greater distance by enemy vehicles. Tho that still doesn't solve the 6 auto attack AV turrets vs 6 tanks at mid-range problem, where not 1 tank dies for a 6 vs 6. Even at mid range, not even far. So I don't know how they improve a 6 vs 6, but they need to. Also silo attackers outnumber the interest of silo defenders, server wide, so you can't say just " grab a squad to defend " because 9/10 times, its easier to find people to destroy a silo than defend 1.

I believe that if the game does not have Flail, Glaive IPC, Orbital Strike uplink, Routing Spire, light air terminal. Then at least players will row less cortium for unnecessary things, which is why those who build bases close to the front will have more cortium. Moreover, the benefit from these things is equal to 0. And from Orbital Strike, allies most often suffer. Moreover, Flail, in those places where you can get on the deployed Sunderer, the enemy cannot resist artillery fire.

You've obviously never played against PMB's during the HIVE era. When placing 1 Skywall shield emitter in a ditch could already make for a tough base and with a few walls backed up by modules that made them invulnerable such bases could be nigh impenetrable except by massively overpopping the defenders.

Now you might not have noticed but I specifically said that it should be fun for both the attackers and defenders. Unfortunately you want the defenders to be rewarded for their planning, as much as there is to plan. Most time is in running back and forth to the silo and deploying stuff, the planning is relatively trivial. Simply shortening the time it takes to place everything while out of combat would already solve most of the issue.

If you were to fully reward defenders the way you talk you would end up with the same situation like we had with hives: it takes 15 minutes for defenders to set up but an equal or greater amount to tear it all down even if there are no defenders, which means the base is so tough you can't do it unless you outpop the defenders. Most PMB's are generated in peace.

As for "attackers dont need to mine cortium", I've proposed the idea of siege equipment before, allowing ANT's to have a series of cortium-build siege engines and deployables to assault a PMB together with the players, rather than "deploy a micro-base with a flail and have at it".

The whole essence of building integration is that:
- to reduce the number of opportunities for destroying bases
- to make bases stronger
- by getting rid of Orbital, Glaive, Flail we will get rid of Trolls more than by reducing the number of things in construction. Moreover, these people think only about murders with these things, and destruction than about the help of their faction.
- It is advisable to remove cordium bombs altogether, but you can make the Pain Spire area of ​ ​ action not available for the installation of the bomb
- and most importantly, making one point in the construction areas of the hex with one point it fully integrates the Construction System into the game. Of course, you can make this point include it only if there is a cortium Silo nearby. If it is not available, you can turn off this point like the hexes that are turned off when the continent is distabilized.

And all this does not mean that new structures and modules do not need to be brought to construction. But you need to get rid of what is not a place in construction. And because of which, the builders themselves often suffer.

Nobody who does contraction wants to build in ditches, do you understand!?!?
You know why some built in ditches? Because the game supported it, Orbital Strike, HIVE, Artillery, Router, air bases, all support this playstyle, because you do not need to find flat ground, it's location doesn't need importance. It only needs to be in range....These structures need to be removed, if you do not want the cancer ditch bases.
(OS, Flail, Glaive IPC, Router, Air Terminal MUST BE REMOVED)

I'm 99% sure you're Wrel, like you have to be. Only he'd come up with this idea

Then everyone in construction is a fool. Using terrain to your advantage should be key for any construction player. Its as basic as being able to figure out that closing gaps in your wall is superior than leaving them there.

The problem was not that people build in ditches, it was that the tools given made it too powerful.

The buildings you name do not have to be removed, there are several ways to change them and make them useful without forcing players to build bases exclusively for them. PMB's should always have been designed with control over the surrounding area in mind, rather than a "wait for enemies to try and enter while you slaughter them" approach. Flail, OS, Gaive, router and vehicle/air terminals could all have supported those idea's. Hell even the air-terminal could simply require a portion of nanites to be paid for its use and simply give a discount for buying rather than a long-use free aircraft dispenser.

I'm 99% sure you have no clue what you are talking about. The idea is tangential of the current meta that Wrel has been pursueing, and with an actual idea and explanation as to why the changes would need to be there. I liked how Ripok at least had the sense to not outright buff PMB's but look for a place in the game and cut off anything he deemed useless. I don't agree with outright removing anything and prefer the option of modifying something to suit the game's setup though, and I see construction needing a far more intelligent gameplay where the builders effectively have to design a suitable battleground for both attackers and defenders to be in, but be rewarded for doing so.

A relatively easy solution (very relative) would be to introduce buildings from current bases to construction, and make these buildings invulnerable to destruction until the silo is destroyed and also make these generate items and advantages for the base. That way a builder can use these buildings to create shelter for the more vulnerable parts of the base, while simultaneously creating openings in their own base that infantry can fight through and it makes the PMB valuable beyond its local position. Depending on what it generates ofcourse.

Gonna throw this in here since I think its an easy change that would improve the defenders lives until any major overhaul could take place.

1. Skyshield has a little edge around it, extending this down a few meters would protect turrets and other buildings from long range tank shots, they would either have to drill through the outer wall or get closer to be able to get an angle on the turrets.

2. Painfields prevent placement of things like Cortium bombs(a bit larger than the painfield to stop people putting bombs just at the edge instead and still get what they wanted.

None of these should be hard to do for the devs but would make a huge difference in just pure QoL for any PMB builders. Though I agree that PMBs actually need to do something else like provide some bonuses or something else to become relevant to the actual game aside from just pulling 'free' vehicles from.

It is a pity that DEVELOPERS put the bolt on the Construction System. Even for such light fixes. Although they can. With 750 nanites, this is perfectly proven.

It requires a different mindset, and that's why I suggested to modify the 3 factions in our other discussions, cause obviously that's why communities divide and we'll never find common ground. But it seems like you don't even want that.


But Construction, before the maintenance I built a base in 15 minutes. This is the regular construction. Amerish, Crux Headquarters.
I drove around, scouted the land, and found a great spot to build at and constructed this in a couple of minutes, which slightly helped with stopping the flow of Sunderers from the TR side because it wasn't expected.



One entrance, no gaps, Spawn and other modules inside the Pillbox which also provides a defensive position if the gate got breached (stopped using Sunderer Garage), AI Turret protecting only entrance and vehicle terminal together with Pain Spire, AT turret at the front of the base, controlled by AI module, repair modules frontally protected by other modules....

Like this is a very decent base, created in a relatively short duration. But it has a lot of flaws, due to the games design. I can create a huge messy list, but it would be much simpler to just state the solution -> Redesign the maps, by giving Construction a purpose in the objective. Once you do this you'll open room for combined arms, all sorts of new strategies, and that's why in my other discussions I purposed the vehicles and construction to be outfit assets to counter spam and zergs, support strategy.




I just saw this game for the first time, just right now as of me writing this, I'm not making this up. It's from 2006, similar to Planetside but, from what I saw how come they could implement all roles into the game's objective?

Meanwhile, we are just discussing nonsense here, devs are making mistakes on purpose to make their job easy and in 2006 they could just do it....I don't get it.
Sound effects, animations, gameplay looks all better compared to Planetside 2. HOW!??
_____________________________________

And ironically in our last discussion ppl where talking about how I should play different games if I want a realistic aspect to it...Compared PS2 to COD and battlefield but the joke is Call of Duty knew how to design the LMG properly, even the person in the video I randomly found, knew what the LMG was designed to do, and Battlefield, as you can see here, knew how to implement all roles into the game...You're just contradicting yourself.

Seriously *** off with that bullcrap. I already made it clear that I disagree with the way you change the factions and the reasons why. I have made more suggestions for factional diversity than you've done as well so your insults hold no water.

Ah yes, so simple. "How do we stop world-hunger? Well just give everyone food!". Its simple to say the solution, nigh impossible to execute it due to the sociology, economics, logistics, politics and even just people who don't want their food selection changed involved in the process.

Changing the continents to make roles for PMB's is probably one of the most work-intensive methods you could suggest. You have to reorganize every base across all continents, some bases will need to be moved or removed entirely to make space for the PMB's so you have to weigh off the value and uniqueness of each base to determine which stay and which go. You have to somehow design the PMB space to reflect the local base design, a base like the treetop fight offered in one of Hossin's bases should not be overshadowed by the PMB fight. You also don't want the PMB portion of the fight to become stale, and somehow still make use of the versatility of PMB's without encouraging players to build the same PMB's at the same bases every time.

An easier solution is something like HIVE's. For all their flaws like not connecting to the main portion of the game, HIVE's fulfilled their role aa PMB objective perfectly. If the devs can create a HIVE 2.0, designed to connect to the main game and support it, then they need to only design the building and its rules&mechanics. For versatility and making sure PMB's can be used in more scenario's and designs you would best be off with several smaller objectives they could create rather than one big one.

Needless to say, your solution does not seem to have considered the consequences and workload it creates just for static PMB area's.

Where does this magical combined arms come from? You just said "redesign the continents", but that wont conjure up combined arms by itself. There would still be little incentive for true combined arms.

Your idea's to limit things to outfits to "counter spam and zergs" is a weird twist of logic. Outfits are numero uno on the list of Zerglings with few exceptions. Giving them exclusive access will only increase the need for anti-zerg tactics, and even destroy many strategies rather than create them as zerglings will simply have more tools available than non-zerglings. The only way for non-outfit players to counter such outfits... is to Zerg. You are also kicking new players harder than ever by removing even more of their gear and giving it to outfits, forcing them to join an outfit not out of want or a connection to the people in it, but out of necessity to enjoy the full scale of the game. That is pretry much the worst incentive to give to get people into outfits.

Because those games were small purpose-build maps with limited players rather than a full-scale continent sized map with limited resources needed to load and track?

You mean you were looking for people who also did not know what they were talking about but mirrored your opinion close enough to "validate" you?

In the meantime I told you the history, terminology, usage and mechanics of different LMG's and what type of LMG the PS2 one's have to be because of that. But sure, a few rando's who echo your opinion is more real than that!
Also COD being closer to realism, you have to be joking right?

I'm down with a lot of ideas in this thread, but this is the one I agree with most. We've argued back and forth with you over "outside the box thinking", so I won't echo that here. Suffice to say, changing the factions is well and good, but it has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with Construction, aside from base ownership. So leave that out.

This is the main reason why I'm always a little bit leery of unanimously endorsing grand sweeping changes to make construction great again. It's a lot of work for...what? One mechanic that is still going to be secondary to the main gameplay and might even upset people more if it gets messed up (see: HIVEs)? It's a huge amount of work that won't necessarily draw in new blood. That's why they paired the Esamir redesign to the Shattered Warpgate. For all its problems, it was a solid excuse for a redesign and gave several marketable points for the new map. Redesigning every map in the game, just to cater to Construction, which a minority of the playerbase invest into, and possibly mucking up the maps even more in the process? Not worth it while other problems continue to exist. As nice as it is to consider how to "fix" construction, I believe it should be secondary to several other problems with the game.

If every map in the game was to be redesigned to cater exclusively to construction, then construction benefitting would ultimately be a minor point on the marketing, as they'd instead put something else (like a new, better campaign or a total revamp of the lattice system) front and centre. There is a perfectly simple way to "redesign" the maps to better cater to construction - just reduce the "no construction zone" limits, so PMBs can be closer to and more effective on actual base combat. You know, the area that most of the games gameplay happens? Just my two cents.

You know, they tried so called "combined arms" with the CAI update... and everyone seems to hate that. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of true combined arms, but if you can actually make it work I'll vote for it.

Regarding the "Limit Vehicles to Outfits" idea from the other argument thread (which Karloo seems to have decided to give up as a lost cause), I already made my points clear there, so I won't repeat them. But Demigan is basically completely correct here.

Smaller games can afford better details and stability without compromising on performance. Planetside 2 has hundreds of players on servers at a time, so I doubt when they initially made it graphics were at the top of their priority list. Honestly, sometimes I feel like it's a wonder they got a game with this many people to run at all.

I greatly appreciate your explanations Demigan, but you know he's just going to ignore or twist them to meet his "vision". He ignored you then, he will ignore you now.

In the meantime, what do you think about changing the "no construction zone"? I feel like reducing it around the Warpgate would prove a perfectly decent change.

-25% of the current radius - good
-40% - excellent

I disagree with some points, but what is your solution, to everything and specifically construction for this topic?

What is the small objective, the HIVE 2.0 would create?...And why does everything, tanks, vehicles, air, construction have its own small objective, its own minigame, outside the real objective? I know all can be integrated.

Sorry I'm never specific, but here, and listen closely this is important. I specifically hate it how you can build an entire lattice base with construction. It was a good concept but I wish it was just used to support the lattice base, instead of building it, something that can be combined with your team, that's why I suggested the Motorized Tactics with ES deployable guns, that is my vision.
I don't like being a construction worker, it's never going to be balanced...You're building by yourself, solo, an entire lattice base, you know how re@rded this is? How can this be integrated?
Instead I would like to support the objective with defenses and this won't work without the map redesign. By " it has a lot of flaws, due to the games design" I'm talking about construction as well, everything.
....So when I suggest the continent rework, this construction we have currently is the last thing I have in mind.
But I don't say it because I assume it's logical what I have in mind cause obviously it would be completely nuts to try to implement this into the lattice base lol. So when I mean rework the map, obviously the role must be reworked with it, I'm not some phsyco who wants the whole game to revolve around construction.

I hope you'll understand me now.

About the old battlefield game....It's not smaller, it's not. For example Battlefield 2, 2005, the PR mode has maps with 8km square dimensions, exactly the same size of Planetside 2 maps. Graphics, sound effects, animations are better, lets rather not talk about it because it's just embarrassing.

__________________________________

But I think you're correct on changing/diversifying the factions. The devs would need to create a whole new game for anything else.
I've seen on TR outfit discords, furriers who praise communism, Stalin, Germans who listen to this rap music, where they visualize themselves as from the hood or whatever, even though they're from Berlin or Prague, it's a literal mental fúcking institution!...All factions. Impossible to innovate, you can only diversify it as you say.