As the title says. Let us place all construction objects at least 1 meter inside another and remove the placement restrictions so we can build how we need to build to make a sealed base. bunkers, bunkers suck *** for any base i build because you can't build ANYTHING near them. Remove the restriction on rampart walls so we can place the end of the wall partially inside the side of a bunker. Towers, you can place things next to towers but you cant place towers next to anything. remove this restriction and give it a half meter to one meter placement inside other objects. Tweak all the placement ! i want to place things how i want!
An impossible base to build if the area is contested. I did it by my self using multiple characters as not many people know how to correctly place things.
Yup, I pretty much co-sign this, as it would literally just help everyone and really not affect balance much at all. it's really just these few annoying things that keep us from building sometimes, it's realllllllllllllllllllllly tedious wasting 50k cortium while getting ganked by jerks to try and fit walls to a freaking tower... and the bunkers are just terrible lol.. we finally found a spot on Amerish for a bunker the other day and we usually spend like 8-12 hours a day base-building... (ever since I got sick it's all I do.. keeps me busy) Towers, you can place things next to towers but you cant place towers next to anything. THIS!!!!! WTF?!?! why can we connect things to towers but not towers to things?!!?!!? so now we have to get people to measure walls and place and replace walls over and over to try and get it perfect and put ammo pack on the ground to measure distances.. -.- wtf lol.. this fix would really help with "castle-like" bases that we like to build. It's hard enough to get to the spot farm enough cortium and then get people there to defend or activate the hive without getting ganked 50 times and spending hours building to have to deal with the collision detection, "Let us place all construction objects at least 1 meter inside another and remove the placement restrictions so we can build how we need to build to make a sealed base." I agree with this... a thousand times over, there's no way it will even break anything in the game, we've already built in ALL the spots (trust me) there's always a way in. but it would make it a lot better if I didn't have to spend 10 minutes trying to place a wall or have the new players re-do their walls 500 times because they didn't close the gap perfectly... one guy spent almost 45 minutes the other day on one freaking wall on Esamir.. lol i felt so bad.. I had to keep telling him to redo it over and over >.< and I'm not saying make it SNAP-TO and easy-mode, I'm just saying let the pieces connect at-least one meter in the objects (ON THE ENDS) we don't want another impenetrable sundy garage exploit with two walls again lol
Looks cool and I like all idea's except the "build inside bases". We can't build inside bases because it would put too much strain on your framerate. It would also offer too much overpowering combinations, making it near impossible to breach a base. Especially with the new rules that make walls invulnerable if they are within a repair module's range. Imagine blocking off a building with a rampart, then place a repair module and shield module behind it. No more enemies getting through that thing! Well, maybe the odd LA, but it takes far too long and too much firepower to blow up the modules, so that's pretty much out of the question. What I do agree with is that we should be able to build closer to bases. You should be able to build small fortifications to provide turret support or outside protection against vehicles. It would be especially good for the game if construction-denial modules were added to each and every base, and the attackers need to take those down to be able to build close to the base while the defenders have a chance to better prepare a defense without being able to make ultra-chokepoints. Additionally bases could offer special placement spots. These small area's allow you to place something inside there to fortify the base further. But by limiting the area's of placement the devs have more control of how much fortification can be build and how effective the fortifications can be.
That's like saying "well if my enemy has a chokepoint, all you have to do is kill them and you are through". I mean look at that amount of Galaxies. You need a massive amount of resource to bring enough people, all because 1 guy placed a wall, 2 modules and a silo somewhere? And it's not like it's guaranteed. All you are saying here is "Zerg the hell out of it by dropping a million dudes on the small opening". If you assumed equal forces, the defenders would still win. The amount of coordination to get everyone on the right spot simultaneously is staggering, meaning that the attack will happen in droves rather than one solid assault. Especially since even if you do drop right behind the rampart, you are basically in a boxed-in murder-hole. Defenders standing on the wall firing inwards and more defenders shooting through the doorway and throwing grenades into this relatively small space you dropped yourself in. Regulate the placement of the constructions and you could build inside bases without such problems, while still benefiting from improved bases. Best of all: Many bases could already have several sections of walls removed, since it would be the player's duty to build the walls and provide the defenses.
Or maybe add a cortium silo to each base (which behaves like player-made ones) which allows the outfit owning the base to build some additional defenses / utility on fixed spots (with terminals) ? I'd like to have an additional layer of utility added, especially for small bases. It could add an interest to take said base over another depending on what your group needs. Some ideas thrown randomly here (to get the idea, not really worked on) : - AA radar that gives engagement radar to phalanx AA turrets and friendly AA equipped ground vehicles within the region. the module can be destroyed but is protected by 2 AA AI-controlled turrets. - Cortium mine that passively gathers cortium deep underground (doesn't drain cortium from nodes) and deposits it in player-made silos. allows a constant income but is shared between all silos in the region - Artillery - same principle as the current ion cannon on the PTS, but on a larger scale with a bigger cooldown. Drains a lot of cortium each shot, used to deal with incoming armor column.
NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Under not single circumstance should outfits get something like this while non-outfit players are left out! There's nothing wrong with adding a cortium silo to bases to begin with, but to grant it only to outfits? In fact, you grant it only to one specific outfit: the one that captured it. This is a double limitation, and it has no reason to be there. Just allow everyone to use it, that makes sure everyone can actually make use of this. In fact, make the Cortium silo's carry even bigger amounts of cortium and add a slow regeneration to it as long as it's connected to the lattice, then draw cortium for spawning infantry, vehicles and utilities. If you run out, the process for spawning infantry/vehicles/utilities takes longer. These could work.
While I agree that some placement restrictions are really annoying, having a perfectly sealed base with indestructible walls is a bad idea. Also that base in those screenshots looks really cool, but in practice it's a really bad design as everything inside will be extremely exposed to tank fire, especially the silo which is sitting on top of the mountain like it owns the place but really is just making itself visible from almost all directions in a 1000m radius. Skywall cover is also going to be problematic. If you put one on top of the mountain, it'll be very high and leave lots of exposed areas. If you put several at different elevations, the people in the infantry towers will be unable to shoot down without hitting their own skywalls.
Yes please. I actually want to see entire 'cities' built by players - and eventually destroyed by them.
It could be that everyone is allowed to place constructs, but ultimately the Outfit which controls the facility has control over the area, allowing them to tear down constructs if needed(This is what many platoons will do when building a base and randoms slop down their constructs randomly, it helps them optimize space far greater). Why? Because there is zero reason to actually owning a facility under your name, you get no benefit except it runs your flag and shows it on the map. There needs to be an incentive to obtain these places.
On one hand you have people abusing garages you literally can't get into with certsin wall setups, on the other, structures that cannot go up a hill for the life of them. It's a hard balance imo, currently it should be more fluid, less starch, and less impossible jigsaw bases.
The big problem with capturing a facility, is that you instantly move to the next one to capture that. There's not much of a reason to stick around as outfit and cultivate the base unless it's going to be attacked right away. But you are an outfit, and you had enough forces to capture a base. Usually this means you'll either capture more bases, or you'll end up in a massive battle at the next base for a long time. This means there's no real reason or incentive to do this as an outfit most of the time. Bases aren't valuable, there's barely any difference between one base and another. This worthlessness means no one really value's bases, whether they own it or not. Then when your base is finally attacked, chances are that practically none of your outfit is actually there. Giving one outfit control over the base and construction placement... Fine. But don't expect it to be used a lot. It would be better and easier to give access to the biggest outfit that is present at the base and the outfit that owns the base. This gives you more reason to be in an outfit but doesn't restrict it. Imagine being in a base with 48+ of your outfit and there's just one dude of the outfit that "owns" the base. Hell, I've accidentally captured a base solo while there were multiple other outfits trying to capture it too. I don't know how that happens, something to prevent overpop outfits to always earn the base I expect, but this would be a big kick in the face. My outfit isn't really active anymore, and then I suddenly have maximum power over the entire base? Not fair to everyone else, and it would make the feature pretty much useless the moment I own one.
Not exactly what I was saying... my point was that once a facility is controlled, every single member of your faction can build there; however the controlling Outfit has ultimate authority in that region, meaning they can deconstruct what they wish, this is not possible for players outside of that Outfit. As for solo Outfits capturing facilities, this happens when they are within the top 10 on the scoreboard, ultimately if you're in the top 10, and the other 9 slots are of enemies, chances are you'll solo capture the facility... it's just extremely unlikely to happen. This would simply be some form of regulation, as currently when building a base, a HIVE is extremely important as it causes the area to be under your squad/platoon's control, were a random solo player to place a HIVE, they would have the authority to deconstruct the entire base. No regulation whatsoever and players build willy nilly, usually resulting in terrible defenses that serve no purpose.
Just be better at scoring points than the other outfit players ^^ Anyway, I was responding to exactly what you describe above: Giving the final control to a single outfit that captures it isn't a good idea. If you want that, bases need to be made more attractive/stragetic to capture first. For instance, capturing a facility gives a certain bonus or effect to players/bases within X lattice links of that base. The capturing outfit could have (a portion of) that benefit anywhere. This would be an incentive to keep a base and fight for it since you actually have some benefit for both capturing and keeping it no matter where you are, instead of only in a base that you are going to leave the second you capture it and might not even realize/care is under attack later on. Incentives that say "you get special privileges only when fighting in a base you captured" isn't a good step. You won't be able to use it right away and it's only "useful" if you get pushed back to the base. incentives that say "Only one teeny tiny portion of the playerbase is allowed to use this if they are the one's that capture the base" is also bad. Imagine if only the capturing outfit is allowed to buy vehicles at that base, it actually dumbs down the game and increases hate when another outfit snatches a capture away from you, and all randoms just sit there thinking "so I can't use a portion of the game unless I join an outfit, and then only the outfit that wins? Even if I fought twice as hard and earned three times the XP as any outfit member?" So any incentive needs to be available for randoms and other outfits as well. The bonus of the facility needs to affect them too regardless of who captures it. I would even say that everyone not in an outfit is part of the general faction-army, and that randoms could capture facilities as well as one group. A Silo causes the area to be under your squad/platoons control, never heard of a HIVE taking that control away. And that makes sense. The Silo is placed by someone who wants to build a base, if a HIVE could wrest this control away you have a method for griefing by placing one randomly and deconstructing everything else. The whole "only the owner of the Silo and anyone in his squad can deconstruct stuff" was implemented in the game just for that reason. The regulation of a base should go to both the outfit that owns it and the highest ranking outfit during that battle (who would potentially gain control if the base wasn't already of your faction). This way you don't dupe a base just because the outfit that owns it is offline or busy somewhere else, like another base they captured.
