Create large cave system (say 10-15 hexes) with at least 6 points that will not have any surface entrance, no air or vehicle terminals. Only way to get in is tru teleporters (not empire-specific) from various places (maybe even on different continents). Players that die inside these caves cannot deploy directly inside and must use teleporters again. Holding this cave system should give some sort of infantry base boost (for example faster shield recharge time after taking damage) How stupid is this idea on scale 1 to 10? (3 is dumb, 4 is crazy and 7 is excellent) PS: Devs already tried something similar at ascent A point, but that is connected to surface of amerish and cave is realtively small. PSS: 5 seconds search on u all known where yields this image: (and this is how i imagine how it should looks like ... just bigger)
An infantry-only fight zone - I kinda like that. Unfortunately I have enough trouble trying to find my way back to the spawn room in a complicated base so I could well get lost/very frustrated in a cave system. Actually, take out the long corridors and dead ends and I still like it. So long as it doesn't end up like a massive Subterranean Nanite Analysis As to what purpose it serves - not worried as I just play for the fighting.
NO operation metro here! NO! BAD! It is bad enough with the amount of tunnels and hallways that we have right now, no more of that ****, it is literally just grenades, rockets, snipers and people being unable to move for hours on end. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
If you want to see how terrible caves are in PS2, look no further than SNA or that cave system under one of those Amerish bases (I forget the name). They are terrible because it's essentially just a collection of long corridors. There's nothing interesting about corridors. Not wide enough to flank. Not much cover. It's just a blind meatgrinder at that point.
Although I would love it, why should it necessarily be a no-vehicle zone? Just imagine some CQC combat with tanks in some tight corridors... Besides that, we need some vehicle-oriented updates that give vehicles an equal role in capturing bases. That would mean they can be less "murder everything because it's the only thing we can do" and more "tactical weapon that can get you victory". That's because they are singular corridors. There's no alternate paths, no branching tunnels that come together again. If you want to get to the other side you can only fight through your opponents. The way around it is to actually add a tunnel system similar to the one described above, but with even more paths. If you get 4 paths leading to the same cave and have several connections between the paths where you can move to the other path/flank/get flanked it stops being a chokepoint heaven and starts becoming a cuthroat murderhole where you constantly need to be looking 360 degrees because there's no sure way of knowing if an enemy is going to jump out from behind, below, in front, above or from your sides. Even using sensors might not give you the information you need because the tunnels might go over and below each other, so you don't know if your enemy is going to be on your level or not.
Isnt it all a matter of overpopulation? I never see pop stay at 12v12 at SNA. It always grows to 48v48 sh*t fest.
Someone else mentioned the BF Metro maps, and to that I'll add in BF4's Operation Locker map. It has more than just singular tunnels. You can pick usually at least two routes inside, and even travel in the snowy outside. This makes for 3 approaches to most of the objectives. Yet it still suffers from that meatgrinder effect of pushing down corridors. It's not a fun map to play except for those who just want to mindlessly shoot face. That's why I'm doubtful that simply adding more tunnels will make for a better map. Probably at some point there is a magic number, but that's unlikely to be 3. 4? Still unlikely. 10? Maybe closer to it. BF4 is also balanced for 32v32, which we know that at certain times PS2 far surpasses. Caves just don't scale very well. Too few players and people will be running past each other in the caves. Too many and any possible flanking routes will be occupied. Not that regular bases don't suffer from this issue as well, but at least then you have 360 degrees of fighting to spread that out in. I dunno. Even with 12 v 12 I can't see SNA ever being good. The walls are see through and everything. And how are the defenders supposed to drive the attackers from the surface?
So you want Caverns? PS1 used to have Caverns. Not to say that was the brightest thing, it was hella confusing with all the transport beams, you might just as well get lost or end up in dead end.
The only really confusing cavern was Annwn and the reason for that was Annwn was a vertical cavern while the its five companions had their main buildings laid out in a much more horizontal fashion.
I understand what you mean, but the layout I see above is still pretty singular isn't it? You move in a straight line and although you have multiple options, all those options are often pretty exposed. Also since you mostly have what, 16 vs 16 battles? You don't get the chokepoint standoffs like in PS2. Pushing through is more a matter of murdering them al in one go this one time and moving on, while in PS2 it's a much complexer system of amount of players, firepower, amount of deaths per minute, amount of time needed to run back, amount of players constantly replenishing the deaths etc. The picture of Buchi shows a much more refined one (and that's a natural formed system). Not all routes lead directly to the endgoal, most even take you farther away, only to give you space to re-enter the tunnels towards the goal farther ahead. They might be detours, but they are detours you can fight in, avoid enemies in, flank in, and eventually end up flanking the very enemies that might be keeping off your allies somewhere else. Just imagine it: TR enters the tunnel at the Siphon tunnel (top left) and need to reach the arrow telling that the cave moves for another 2000 feet farther down (mid-right) Right off the bat you have 3 routes to take. Top route immediately moves through several thin interconnecting paths, meaning tight corridor fights and at any point enemies might be popping in from behind or slipping passed you. The right path is a more straightforwards path that eventually splits itself, gathering up later. The bottom one shifts between tight corridors to larger openings to tight corridors again. And even if you can immediately block off all 3 tunnels you are still spread thin over 3 spots, and even though you probably can hold a chokepoint with fewer defenders than attackers, they can still focus their attention and break through somewhere.
That is because Tanks suck at being close infantry support. They are their most vulnerable to infantry at close range. Any tank in a CQC fight with any infantry is just going to get C4d or Tank Mined. I personally believe this is why Tanks just stay back and shell things. They cant get close and be viable in closed in areas without possibly getting 1-shot from nearly any direction. Ill bet youd see alot more Tanks getting up close and personal if they had resistance to C4. OT: Caves like in PS1 would be awesome, with LA added to the game, you dont so much need all the crazy ziplines like PS1. But i think making the entry a teleporter is just asking to get camped at the portals. They should be like PS1s Geowarps and be mini warpgate bubbles that allow some protection and retaliation to campers.
AP tanks? Probably, AI tanks...? They stand a good chance out-killing any MAX. And it would be about time that people would prefer to take an AI tank because infantry is enough of a threat instead of the "one-size-fits-all" AP technique. Imagine that you are holding a long-range LMG that's just as good in CQC as it's long-range. Do you A: Get right in your enemies face to give them an equal chance or B: Keep your distance and milk your advantage to the max? Tanks fight on much larger distances than infantry, even when engaging infantry. Getting in close only means they are more vulnerable, but they aren't insta-killed just because they got close. 1: I'll bet most tanks will still sit at range so they won't have to repair as often due to the short-ranged infantry AV options. 2: Mineguard should give all vehicles except the Sunderer (which has blockade) some C4 resistance (and nice cosmetic to show it) to make it more useful overall. I don't see no problem with a vehicle having to choose between one thing or another. I still bet people won't take mineguard as much and prefer to complain.
I want to fly and dogfight in large underground caverns. That would make air game even more interesting, raise the skill bar for environmental awareness In fact, it would be nice if we could have "sky castles" with large caverns/halls to fly thru. No easy place to get for infantry, no ground vehicles
