List of Tower Bases that still have A point inside the tower.

Actually its not a "I know better than everyone else" things. Its something thats been painfully obvious for 3 years and has impacted this game over time!.


Bio-labs and Towers with A point inside of them have alot in common.

• They both require a large amount of forces to take over.
• They both have problems with choke points where no progress is made.
• They both stop map flow in its tracks.
• They are bases associated with & promoted/promotes farming.(aswell as farming mentalities.)
• They have impacted the player experience negatively and have been slowly grinding the playerbase away.

Now on to your statement:

To respond to that, the best way to explain it is to talk it out.( and do a quick Q&A)

1) Q: Why do people target the Tower?

A: Because enemy players are spawning from it.

2) Q: What does putting a point inside the same tower do?

A: Creates incentive to target & focus on the tower aswell as the players spawning from it.

3) Q: What happens if A point is removed from the Tower?

A: The attacking force no longer has alot of incentive to target or focus on the tower.


Now that thats covered....... lets talk about your statement in relation to Tower Bases with A point inside of them.

You really have to ask "where is this point located that is being shelled & why they are shelling it?"

Well the Q&A thing I did above pretty much answers that.

They are shelling the point because its located in the same tower where the enemy is spawning from.

If you look at the design history/development history of Tower Bases in relation to gameplay interaction you will notice that these bases keep getting farmed, so more protection had to be added. From more building parts to extending the spawn shield to protect the hallway.

If you ask "Why have tower bases been farmed so much?" the answer is pretty simple.

The A point is inside the tower & people have become accustom to associating towers with farming due to that.

Tower bases with A point not inside the Tower itself but instead in a nearby structure do not have the "tower farming" problem since the action is not focused on/in the tower as much since the action is spread out around the base itself and more things are happening.

You said I was "complaining about bases where shelling infantry fighting over a point was difficult". That ticked me off.

By removing A point out of the Tower itself, what ever shelling the Tower has no incentive to do say. I don't want any points to be shelled at by tanks, especially the sardine can of a Tower base.

You want to stop "Tower Farming?" Remove A point out of the tower itself(and put it in a nearby structure) on all Tower Bases.

Also "Tower Farming" has caused balance repercussions & opinion/viewpoints changes involving vehicles/aircraft. Even to a point where things have been watered down over time.

This is a total non issue, expect to the OP.

I think your sentence has a "total non issue"

You don't seem to get it... we LIKE fighting in the tower

As the attacker or as the defender?

Really? We're going to nitpick over typos?
Good luck on your tower crusade.

... Both

Crusade? All I'm stating is the facts.

What do you do in each when it comes to the A point inside the tower?

Describe, lets have a discussion.

Defense: Heavy handed. MAXs, HA, Engies. Things that go boom and can take abuse. Defend vehicle bay and A point level. Lots of fun. Much boom.

Offenese: LA - Tower Stomping. Bounce between levels, run and gun (shotguns and SMGs primarily), liberal application of C4 to windows, doorways, and stairwells.

Either way... its a bunch of fun. In particular, I rather enjoy the verticality of the fight.

Can you explain "good map flow" and "bad map flow"? I think it's a completely subjective point. The way you say it now, it looks like you say that whenever a base is highly likely to stop an enemy advance when taking multiple bases in a row, that is bad map flow.
But why is that bad? Base variety needs to be there. We've got completely open bases, where the point is reachable by any vehicle or at least open to their fire, there's bases where vehicles can't even get close to the point, and the point itself is shielded by a building, and that building is even shielded by walls and other buildings. This creates map variety and however small a difference in attack patterns and approaches. Some bases are vulnerable to air, others to vehicles, others are solely captureable by infantry. True, PS2 can benefit from a wider variety and the ability for ground&air vehicles to have more effect on the actual capture, but that's a different discussion.

This is more a problem of Zergs and the lack of good exits in towers. All infantry has to exit the tower, allowing a small group of tanks to oversee all exits in a single glance when they are surrounded. There's no teleports or underground gravlifts to buildings and area's outside of the towers. Ofcourse, not all towers should get exits outside, so the variety is even greater.

People should learn to use different tactics, rather than running up those stairs they could use LA's. Some additional ways to enter the tower such as a jumppad that launches you somewhere on the open middle platforms (FieldSpar base has/had one like that), so you can avoid the stairs altogether without landing directly on the A-point level. The problem with the grenades can be fixed with some cover in the right spot. The new AV mines can deal with MAX crashes.

That's true, it does create a dam. There's two ways to stop it:
1: Move all points outside of the tower
2: Any tower with an A point inside will get 2 points outside (and some will simply have their A point moved outside to a more accessible area, even the bottom of the Tower could be an option), so they can be captured without an overweight of infantry inside the tower.

I'm for option 2.

The whole game has too little meta to offer something else. There's either a stalemate where none get it until they get enough people together, or they are pushed back, or they take the base due to the outside points. We need a deeper gameplay for something like this.

People "waste" hours of gameplay trying to take bases. They succeed and they fail, but in the end it doesn't really matter does it? How many games are not played anymore, how many deathmatches have been had where one won, that even the winners and loners don't remember? The goal of the game is to have fun, if players like wasting hours of gameplay to take A, the hours aren't wasted.
You can make an argument to make it more fun, and I'll be the first to scream "yes", the game needs a deeper meta, a more varied way to be able to capture and hold bases other than a king-of-the-hill type gameplay.

I've actually seen less and less tower battles in recent times, this might be my own problem, but tower battles are less big farms than Biolabs for instance.

Just about every base goes out text book style, the game has too little variety in capture. You can see it everywhere. There's standard places to place sunderers, standard places to park tanks and use cover, standard places where you'll find MAX's, groups of infantry, chokepoints etc. When they get destroyed, there is usually a standard secondary place where they put down their Sunderer, MBT or whatever they have, one with protection against the usual ways these vehicles are attacked.
The game needs a better variety, a better meta. Regardless of loadout or vehicle, you should always have at least one thing to do, and preferably at least two ways to do it, even if it is two ways to approach it.

Not all bases should be like that, some bases need a nice good focus on one point. Some bases become impossible to defend, some bases become impossible to attack, some bases are in between. I don't think there's a big problem with a Tower being the focus, having so many towers with only an A point inside and not a single exit farther from the spawn... yes that begins to become a problem.

Where does most of the Tower A point fighting take place?

I have 2 questions I want to pose to you.

1. How would the game change if A point was removed from all Tower Bases towers?
2. How would the meta change if "Tower Farming" was killed for good?(Which really, would happen when A point is no longer in the Tower itself).

NO, just NO, that's the last thing this game needs, bases that are even easier to cap by zergfests with players that can't do jack themselves. If anything, we need more of those that are harder to cap, not those that are even easier. On the other side, tower camping/farming can't really be killed "for good" if we don't remove towers themselves.

Who are you again?


Also there is a difference between hard to capture bases, and bases that rarely are captured at all unless you have more numbers then the enemy does, and you have to shove those numbers into small areas.

I actually find tower fights to be one of the most enjoyable fights we have in the current state of the game. Having a capture point in the tower means the zerg come to me instead of the other way around. You actually get to use all the dirty tricks you've learned over the last 3 years and everyone expects you to do so. If you have problem with explosive spam flak armour is your friend.

So you are farming them & thats why you like it.

Am I farming them? Yes. Is that why I like it ? No. The reason I like it is because this is what moreless every single tower fight in the original Planetside looked like. Nostalgia is a strange beast.

You just admitted that yes you are farming them.

Focus on PS2 Tower fights when A point is inside the tower itself, I can understand nostalgia as much as the next guy but to be fair PS2 is a "remake/re imagining" not a sequel to PS1.

I've already told you the reason I like fighting in towers with A point inside as well as whether or not I'm farming.