I think it was a good move to remove rampart indestructibility, but front line bases are too easy to kill with armor zergs now. I built a sloppy spawn with a few walls on top of the hill between Xenotech and Regent Rock in hopes of creating an open field diversion battle that would keep them off the points at Regent rock once Xenotech was captured. What happened instead was vanguards shelling the base from hundreds of meters away and one of the key walls and siloh were erased in no time leaving us nowhere to fall back to. Just a suggestion the siloh should still be made indestructible with a repair module. In addition a more porous defensive structure like the blast walls should be made imune with repair modules like the rampart walls used to be. I feel this is a good compromise because blast walls are as I mentioned porous meaning infantry can flow through and they can't be clamped shut like the ramparts. This will allow us to create directional fortifications rather than these hard cased shells surrounding all sides of a base. In addition they're harder to block entire roads with. Blast walls would actually be able to live up to their name and protect from the shelling aspect of an assault. Is my request reasonable enough?
I agree in a different way. The principle should be that there are internalized structures of a player-built base that act as a linchpin to the fundamental security. The primary problem with doing it that way, however, is the implementation of that new structure that causes continuous AOE damage to any infantry that walk near it. If you had this, you could essentially have an immortal base as a smart builder would place those massive damage emitters near all of the choke points and important structures that keep everything alive and stable. Without the ability to make new holes it would require a massive strike force to destroy one building with nothing vehicles could do to respond. I guess you could say, the reason huge armor columns will be the only thing player bases will see is because of that infantry-nuking flame AOE son***** that sprouts up everywhere.
I have to disagree with you. I see it from a different point of view. You build a base with the various parts you have. It gets attacked by several Tanks, but where are your defenders here? It sounds like the base should stand up for itself, but it shouldnt. Engineers could counter repair stuff and your own faction could fight back, wich doesnt seem to have happened here. I understand your idea, but so far its way to easy to place bases in ways they get hard to attack already. Making stuff immune to damage again would just create hard or impossible to attack bases again. Its simply to easy to hide key modules to prevent infantry to easily get tehre and destroy them. First they have to resolve the issues bases have in terms of being attackable, then we can talk about damage resistances of walls and stuff.
As a full "construction-worker", i can say he is not that wrong. The buldings are not too weak, but the modules causing the problem. They (repair-module) can be sniped out by an infliltrator/ archer engineur, then a tank is killing the silo - game over for this base. Solution: Modules should be immune to infantery fire, HE or Aircrafts. They should only be vulnerably to armorpiercing tank guns, the libs tankkiller, or C4. Or they add a new feature: Infiltrators can hack modules, making them useless vor 2 minutes. You have to use brain instead of brutforce. Silos getting there own shield, powerd by a shield module. Repairmodules should get a repair-buff Turret KI should react on much(!) more distance (80% of the overall range), if the base is attaced by this vehicle. The red "no building zones", should be only on big stations, like AMP, BioLab or Techplants. Imagine the fun, to harden a normal base with turrets, walls, gates, shields etc. (but no paintowers ^^) But if DB only focus on the first point - the module-resistance - it would have a big inpact of the base survival.
Can already think about the fun it will be to kill bases that have modules stored in towers or garages protected by additional gate shields in places tanks cant reach, with air shields so libs cant reach them as well. You get my point. So we send in Infiltrators into pain fields to die while trying to hack modules? Interesting... That would be acceptable. These modules are there to support you. Its not their job to do all the work. If you get under to much fire get some Engis to repair stuff. If you are alone against 10 players, well bad luck. Again, the AI module is there to support you. Its not the job of the AI to do the work for you. I can already feel the fun it will be to storm bases fortified with AI powered Spear Minigun towers that mow down anything that moves in splitseconds with Modules stored away safely so they dont get easily taken out...
What needs to happen is the other three continents need the Indar treatment; that is they need to be reworked so they are more supportive of PMB activity. Similarly, it needs to be recognized that PMBs are not indestructible, and need to be properly defended to stand up to anything. Finally, I've noticed quite a few PMBs suffer from similar design flaws, which leads to them getting surrounded and taken out very quickly.
I like that walls are no longer indestructable. However, standing against a tank zerg is near impossible, and in your case, especially boring due to the long range interaction. In total, this is the usual "zerg-experience". Lets have a look on both sides: Attackers bring: Multiple tanks at 350/450 N Manpower of 10+ Good positioning PMB got: One ANT at 200N In your case maybe up to 3 players building/harversting Time investment The crucial point is time investment. It is hard to balance out. However lets calculate a base time invest for Narnites at 50/min. Assuming they brought 5 MBTs, they brought an investment of 45 min. In this calculation, you would need to build (not harvest, as it is rewarded seperatly) for 40 min to match the attacking force. Or bring more people. Construction however doesnt scale good with numbers, as its defense (turrets) can not be stuck together. And thats OK! ATM, constructions primary use is support! Spawning free vehicles, router and maybe (the actually now worthless, but fun) OS is where the true power comes from. Turrets and stuff are just meant to be in self defense to buy time for others to help.
I think the only things construction need is more protection for the silo either by : making it a smaller target so vehicle can't hit it from behind the walls if the base is build correctly more resistant to damage as long as a shield silo is nearby and you can enable the shield module to make your silo temporary immune to damage. Immune to damage as long as there is a shield silo nearby (but people that build module inside the ground will abuse from that one). allowing to build multiple but weaker silo so you base still run for a short time, even when your main silo is destroyed ("emergency cortium reserve" : a module that store up to 1000cortium). The other thing construction need is that "construction repair tool" that is/was on PTS : any infantry can repair construction as if they had a repair tool rank 1 (take the same slot as deconstruction tool).
Op is right but for the wrong reasons. Tank shelling the front wall of a base is just about the worst way to assault it and only works if the defenders are vastly outnumbered. Defenders can activate structure invincibility and out repair tank fire with less than half the numbers. Smart attackers will archer snipe exposed modules, use cortium cloak ants with howlers to deconstruct walls, set up 1 man glaive bases 900m away to take out sky shields and disable modules or, as a last resort, just orbital strike it. A smart attacker will ruin any base but tank shelling is not the action of a smart attacker.
Amazing, it seems to me like 90% of all bases fall to stupid attackers then. Somehow works for them.... ;-)
