So base building has been a thing for a little while now. And to be honest, it's utterly boring. People build massive bases and you're supposed to sit on them, waiting for an enemy to show up. That's boring. You either zerg an enemy base and kill it quickly or, if you're met with stiff opposition, you never actually destroy it. Either way, base building is a boring adventure. The only ones who it benefits are the lucky defenders who still happen to be around to defend a zerged base. Lately, DBG has added a whole score of nice things you can add to your base to make it indestructible. First it was that the repair module makes walls/bunkers impregnable. This means you have to approach it, get behind it to defeat it. If you're a defender it's a turkey shoot. Then came the continental spawning antenna and if that wasn't enough, you can now place a spawn tube directly. All to make bases impregnable and thus persistent. Now, this might only be a tactical hindrance, were it not for the Victory Points they generate. They TOLD us that the closer it is to an enemy WP the faster it generates. However, they then buffed this to a point where any generator will eventually churn out VP's like they're mass producing it. So from a gaming perspective you HAVE to attack those bases. Even the ones who have been chucked away deep in "enemy territory", free from attacks and built so extensively that only a 10 to 1 overpop could take them out. So clearly for the attackers it's boring to fight against something you cannot destroy. Alternatively, it's just a chore if you have to fly to an empty/undefended base and blow it up -> rinse and repeat, while you could be fighting over a region instead. And as defenders you either have to sit on a base whole evening long (which is where I leave the platoon if that's what they're doing) or perform a turkey shoot if they zerg you. So obviously, bases are boring. So boring in fact that I refuse to participate in building them (safe for a turret farm) and I refuse to defend them too. From a gaming perspective, you made them so important that they will win the continent anyway if no one does anything about them. Yet as a game mechanic you made them so boring that it's just a chore now. So please, remove base building. Until then I'll be playing some other games. Thank you.
You'll not be missed. Are you really expecting them to remove a massive aspect of the game because it's boring to you? Do you not understand how much time and money went into the entire system to get it where it is today, and how much more they plan to spend? Construction isn't going anywhere, they're going to keep making content for it, and giving more reasons to fight at these bases so it wont be boring. You wont be around to see it though so none of this matters.
When it comes down to a choice of removing a feature or the OP removing themselves, you know which one is more likely going to happen. You've already satisfied your own conditions.
Bases are cool. It's like they turned the game into an RTS. The problem is just when the builders always build them at the end of the world and you have to sit there like an hour or so until finally the enemy arrives.
It might be nice if they capped the number of VP's an empire can generate to like 5. Then those who are interested in fighting over bases can do so and leave the real game up to the rest of us.
Constructed Bases continue to be a mess. Only they use to be a minor side game mess, and now they are moving more and more toward being a mess that also has a major impact on the game's Formal Objective. Devs need to figure out what role(s) Constructed Bases are intended to play in the game, and then implement/alter design with that role in mind. If Constructed Base's role is as a minor side game, then make them have less impact on the Formal Objective. If their role is as a major impact on the game, then make them much more viable for enemy forces to take if they have more than 50% population in the base fight and a standard mix of units or different combinations of mixed units. Currently, Constructed Bases are typically avoided by most Attacking Players because they are a mess to try to attack without overwhelming forces, and also because they are often well away from the Battlefield front lines of a specific enemy and so very difficult to get to.
I think the answer to part of your problem is the latest update, you can use the alarm module together with the spawn tube to be comfortable to get out of the base. A. Not all built bases are built well enough, for example I am ashamed about VS in cobalt because it seems there is no one knows how to actually build a good base and the are getting killed like they made out of paper. Actually I learned from other players how to hunt poorly built bases solo, but we are talking here about so poor built bases that they don't have a stricture shield around their core, but it seems there are many idiots like that *cough cough* Cobalt VS *cough cough*. B. Even if the base is well behind enemy lines did you ever heard about "getting your squad in a galaxy, make sure you have infiltrator, drop on enemy base that is close to the base and then hack the vehicle terminal and have a sneaky convoy." No?! You never tried that. well that's a shame. Also I can suggest what Cobalt TR seems to learned from day one of base building, if you see an enemy population in your territory well away from the front lines than it might be that they are trying to build a core on your territory.
I like base building and a lot of others do too. Your attitude is questionable and because of that I have to agree: You won't be missed. But apart from that you have some somewhat valid points. The bases are not balanced right. Example: Yesterday we build a massive base, everything there is to build with 6 Players. And it was boring after the building, nobody came to attack, despite it sitting between important bases. And then, right before the lock a massive attack came, a zerg of nearly 30 comet maxes with pocket engineers and medics took out our really massive base in 2 Minutes. That was really frustrating. It should really be harder to take out a base given the time and resources invested into it. But it shouldn't be so dangerous that smaller groups are scared away. It's hard to balance. 2 Days ago a friend and me took out a base, quite big too, 5 skyshields... With 2 infiltrators. Gotta admit, the defenders where stupid, but still it was too easy. Sneaking up on the core, overload it, wait short - and pump all the pistol bullets into the core as fast as you can. - BOOM- Giant base owned by two stalkers with pistols.... Fun for us, but unbalanced as hell if you ask me.
Aren't player bases supposed to be as big part of base capturing as regular ones? The main reason players take bases is to get the 1 cert. Do you get that when destroying player bases?
While I stopped holding my breath some time ago for "Battle Islands", I believe that the construction would go well with a vacant warpgate continent, so I encourage the fleshing out of construction.
Don't remove it, add it to the actual metagame. Others might not have seen it, but construction is a completely separate metagame that just so happens to achieve the same goal. But there's not much incentive to actually attack them. The bases can be build anywhere and mounting a proper assault can be difficult outside of organized outfits. And to put something this important to the metagame in the hands of outfits alone is ludicrous, since dedicated outfits usually have specific times they come together. Anywhere outside that it's basically a win for the base builders. Construction needs to have more purpose. The new biolab on PTS for instance is a perfect way to increase the value of base-building. You build a base around the capture points and an attack will come once the bases leading up to it fall. I would propose to change how HIVE's work. For instance by having all VP's generated by a HIVE be removed if the HIVE is destroyed. This adds more emphasis on destruction of HIVE's as well as stragetic attack and defense. It also means that the continents don't just auto-lock after a bunch of HIVE's are build and survived for X time total despite destructions. This means a fight on a well-contested continent can take far longer and be more engaging&stragetic than we currently have, since HIVE destruction means more than temporarily halting/reducing the VP gain of the opposing faction. Secondly I would make construction bases far more important in capturing existing bases. For instance by allowing players to build a lattice-link generator anywhere on the map. Once build you can freely attack and capture the enemy base... Unless your lattice-link generator is destroyed prematurely, encouraging the players to build a protective base around it before assaulting the opposing base. This creates a much nicer battle between two factions, where both factions are simultaneously attacking and defending. Thirdly, add bases with minimal defenses that need to be amplified with base construction. For instance be re-adding bases like Broken-Arch road on the lattice-link map but removing most of the buildings so that construction is the only way to defend it. Additionally add specific constructionpoints on the map. Construction on these points would give you an advantage in the area, for instance increased resource gain, access to MBT spawns, activation and access to jumppads that are placed within the area, ability to drop-pod within a large circle around the construction points, intermittend air-radar etc. This gives the developers more control where and how people can build their bases, and allows them to create a more streamlined experience for both the attackers and defenders. Rather than the current "defenders pick the nastiest point to attack and attackers will largely ignore them".
Meh, if they are out of the way, then don't defend them. Some of the best fights I've had are in bases designed and placed specifically to get a fight. Those out of the way bases are specifically designed and placed to not get a fight and last as long as possible. It's builder's choice... and you have the choice of joining them and defending or picking a different base to defend (or build). I do think the new spawn system and matrixing will make defending easier as you can go kill at a fight nearby and redeploy back when it actually gets attacked. It'll probably make it lopsided too much towards defenders, but we'll see how things go. See, this is a bad base build. With 5 Skyshields, that means they had 5 AI turrets at their disposal. The modules and hive should have been untouchable as stalkers. As soon as you decloak an AI turret should have ripped ya to shreds. Overlapping Structure shield mods, AI modules, and AI turrets and maybe 1-2 guys defending would make it impossible. Sounds like they didn't have that, thus allowed two stalkers to get in and kill it. When 2-3 of my guys build a base, it's never been able to be taken down by stalkers... it's always been via vehicles or gal drop. Especially a 5-shield base... when they get that big, they should have a good inner core of defense. Unless it was a 1-shield base that just grew to 5 via an unorganized grouping of randoms. In which case, it was a bad base build. (I've seen a lot of those, and busted quite a few myself) Personally, This is part of the base building that I enjoy the most. The designing, defending and busting of bases. It requires a bit more thought than.. "just place things down randomly and complain when its not impenetrable" I love when a base requires overwhelming numbers to bust. It means that it was constructed well and having it attacked with those numbers means it was placed correctly to incite a fight as well. Much more fun than the out-of-the-way bases that don't hold up to a small 3-4 man bust squad.
Base building caters to maybe 5% of the players (the rest simply doesn't give a Higby) but impacts everyone due to VPs. Its allways great to have a continent, that has some exciting battles going on, locked due to 5 hives somebody cramped into the narrowest crevice at the edge of the map. I allways wondered what those 1-12 players are doing at their little forts for 2 hours w/o seeing a single enemy. Are they playing house or having a tea party with their imaginary friends? And don't get me started about the fights at player build bases. Usually you either attack a deserted base where all defenders died of boredom. Or you zerg it like a swarm of locusts (if you find enough ppl who actually care). In either way, the fights hardly last more than 5 minutes and are rarely "fun". Anything taking longer isn't worth it and you are better off fighting at the regular bases. I wouldn't shed a single tear if DBG would get rid of the construction system entirely. And yes, VS bases on Cobalt are pretty ****** constructed, b/c the players/outfits who would have the tactical acumen and organisation to build better ones, couldn't care less. I've seen all VS cores go neutral because nobody couldn't even be bothered to contruct a shabby hive near the warpgate. But TR and NC bases usually don't look much better, the only difference is, that they tend to spam hives all over the place (esp. TR).
Prior I might have agreed, but after the IPC and update, I'll disagree. A good base fight is awesome. Like a Biolab but with vehicles and air and all the chaos that ensues. Really awesome. I can now see 4 base types versus the 1.5 we had before: Victory Base - Hive protection for VP's Firebase - Area denial or Sieging another base Reinforce - Spawn/vehicle resupply for foothold in certain areas. (if a fight lasts 20 minutes to get an airdrop secured for example at Waterson's Redemption, it should be enough time to get a vehicle terminal/spawn terminal up nearby for faster vehicle response.) Resupply point - simple ammo tower. There's a few challenges with bases. 1. The horrendous research cert costs per item. These really need to be rethought. IPC Glaive and weapons...ok I'll take it with a grain of salt. But basic walls/pillboxes should be a lot cheaper. Divide it into categories and certs accordingly. Certain things need to be accessible to low BR (but definitely agree not everything) Entry Level - Silo, blast wall, bunker, faction banner Inactive - garage, pillbox, towers, ramp (450 certs) Support - AI, alarm, Ammo tower, Reinforcement, Hive (650 certs) Defensive Active - Repair Module, Structure Shield, Vehicle Gate Shield etc (850 certs) Weapons - Cannon, Gatling, Flak etc (1000 certs) T2 - Skywall, Spawn Tube (1500 certs) T3 - Glaive, Nanite terminals (Vehicle, Air etc) (2000 certs) Make some basic aspects of base construction more available to the general population for adoption. 2. Faster to setup. Bases have a saturation point that is very easy to pass for big fights. They are slow to build and once their damage saturation limit is reached, its wrecking ball time. Being able to deploy base structures in a map view would be very handy and faster as well for things that do not need pinpoint precision. 3. Blocked Construction is a hindrance. This is difficult to address, but open construction can make a mess of too many cooks in the kitchen, and closed construction can not keep up because limited people can only do so much. Add another option of 'Base Planner' or whatever title that can place 'reserved areas' for certain constructions. If a turret goes down, another person can rebuild but only within the areas you designate for that turret. This can allow a master plan to be deployed for bases that multiple people can work towards upkeep. Or if simpler, when a building is destroyed, leave the wreckage and anyone can rebuild the structure in the same exact spot (replacing the wreckage) unless the wreckage is deconned.
So far this is the best way to take down a base that I've found. It may be too difficult to drive an armoured column straight through the enemy lines to get to a rear base, but you can pull together a fairly substantial one by hacking enemy vehicle terminals. While it's more costly than a Gal drop, it's also better for sustained operations. Gal drops either work... or they fail. Pulling a column from behind enemy lines allows for a sustained siege and heavier weapons. It also gives more options against an enemy counterattack. The best part is that as base defenders, this can be very fun as well. I remember some Indar base fights against TR columns that would materialise out of the desert... it was thrilling, open ground vehicle warfare where we didn't know when and where they would strike us. We pretty much had ESFs patrolling as scouts to try to pinpoint the location of the enemy column... probably the closest PS2 has ever come to modern combined arms mechanised warfare I've seen.
I really like base building, I think it adds a really interesting and fun aspect to the game and provides lots of options for the future as people get better building them. There are two points others have raised I would agree with however. I do see people putting up Hives with little to no defences around them and for the life of me I do not understand why they do that. Taking a Hive from the enemy can take the coordinated effort of a significant percentage of a factions continental force from a well defended enemy base. A hard battled and won Hive can then be given back to the enemy because someone has placed a Hive with little to no defences, simply because it further into enemy territory rather than in a well defended base is a bad move. Perhaps the placement of Victory cores to Hives should be based on the bases ability to defend as well as location on the continent, strike a balance between the two as both are important. Another point raised was how a good duo of Infiltrators can take down large bases with relative ease if they know what there doing. I like the idea of defending a base from all classes of troops but the infiltrator has a huge advantage when attacking a player made base, all other classes have to work either in reasonable numbers or with great skill to attack a base. Its a little to easy for infiltrators. That said I could not disagree with the original thread posters views more, base building is a great feature and a lot of fun, the more it gets developed and added to the better and more fun it will become. More Base Building please!
Okay, I'll answer this one as I've done it a few times in the past few weeks and here is the reason I do it. There are multiple neutral cores sitting there unused. Period. End of Story. Why do I put one up with absolutely no defenses? All of my constructables are used in a different Base with a Silo and Hive from one of my squadmates. That is the true base I'm working on. I'll throw up a Silo/Hive combo somewhere else to just use one of the neutral cores, expecting it to be destroyed, but even if it survives 5-10 minutes, that's 5-10 more minutes that we didn't have before. If you have a squad of 2-3 guys building, and they put all their stuff into one nicely built base... you can grab 1-2 other hives and have them running disposable... especially if you are going out and cortium mining anyway. A bonus is getting a group to go core hunting and thus provoking a base fight. I won't do it when there are active fights for cores or if cores are scarce, but generally only when there are a surplus of unused or neutral cores. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a core setup for this reason, and a core setup by a newbie just playing around with construction for the first time, however. Prior to core neutrality and timeouts being put in, I would never do this. Now with unused cores going neutral over time, it's not a huge risk to use up some of those neutral cores for however long they last for. (We also bust bases pretty frequently as well, so If we need one, we can always just do that)
