Base building needs work.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Amiitalia, Aug 13, 2019.

  1. Amiitalia

    Is there really a point to trying to make bases? Cause messing around with the stuff, it just seems like utter trash on how it works. It seems like the idea is there, but abandoned.
  2. ZDarkShadowsZ

    I enjoy it, but I wish modules weren't such a hassle to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of them, but they're like little speed bumps plastered all over the place. I'd like it more if we could integrate them into other buildings we've constructed, such as walls or on top of pillboxes/towers.

    I'd also like to see more done with bunkers. At the moment the only thing they have going for them is the terminal. The roof looks like it could clearly take a turret, yet we can't place one atop it. I'd also like to see a few more buildings for cover as well. I absolutely love placing the tower for friendly snipers, or making nice cosy areas for the pillbox. Apart from those two, and walls, there isn't much cover-related buildings. Unless you count the functional buildings such as turrets, the silo, OS etc.

    I do wish cortium spawns were better as well. Sometimes I still see them spawn inside of a rock or under the terrain.

    Finally I'd like to see a new way of transporting cortium. So perhaps the Valkyrie or Galaxy could allow a cortium storage module that allows ANTs to transfer large quantities of cortium into their storage, and have the aircraft transport that cortium through the air. Though with that said, I suppose there's not even enough cortium spawning to even do that.
    • Up x 1
  3. karlooo


    The job of the base builder is to design the base, put the modules where you you believe would be best. Currently designing is too easy.
    In the past some modules used to have a min range between each other, for example I think the shield module and AI module couldn't be placed near each other, you where forced to construct in a specific order to have your base precise and not scattered... I don't remember how anymore and you needed a lot of planning before placing.
    You didn't have 2 vehicle gates, but now the devs made it not possible to build in between the gate, not allowing creativity. Because you used to have a limited amount of entrances you had to find the perfect spot or had to use the Sunderer Garage, which needed a lot of precision.
    Vehicle gates where only powered by a shield module.


    Building bases now is easier than ever but at a price, the defenses got hard nerfed, making designing bases useless. In the past there where problems but now it's even worse.

    Most people don't even bother to designing anymore and they're smart to do so. Most just place the Silo and OS with no design or the router structure hidden somewhere far from combat.
    • Up x 1
  4. karlooo


    It's abandoned and in the shop only for the money grab.
    In my opinion what could bring some of it back would be by giving the the structures shield HP again, removing the Flail, removing the obstacle in between the vehicle gate.
    For it to at least stop and defeat Zergs...I used to do that in the past.

    Currently the only 'useful' things you can do with construction is OS strikes or router spawns.

    OS is the biggest mess. It's a large radius nuke which kills both allies and enemies who are not careful...But you know you could have done literally 100 times more by just playing regular infantry instead of building, resupplying for like 30 min and charging up the OS for a couple more min.

    The Routing Spire is a type of structure which doesn't let you stay in your own base. You have to constantly leave....this means you cannot place too many structures because you will have to resupply constantly.
    So for the router base you want to hide it far away from combat, Silo, Routing Spire (maybe add in a spawn tube, air terminal for free air).

    This is all you can do currently. I don't know anyone who asked for this.
  5. ZDarkShadowsZ

    I agree with you, but it doesn't remove the fact that given the number of module varieties, it requires a good portion of planning and precision to construct effectively. Some areas, such as the tower, which allow two modules to be constructed within it, are a convenient measure because again, they can be placed within the ground floor area of the tower. An elysium spawn tube can be placed within a pillbox similarly so. However, unless a person is willing to spend a long time trying to accurately fiddle around with the game's construction building mechanism, it's often more hassle than anything else.

    A common issue I see is players quickly building bases. Ignoring the OS/flail as a reason for a moment, these quickly built bases are often done out of fear that their base will be destroyed, so construction items are placed in haste, and poorly so. Primarily due to as you have stated, defences have taken a hit. People spend a lot less time making a good strong looking base because it's only going to be taken down quickly as equally so.

    With all these reasons in hand, I still stand by the fact that modules should be allowed to be placed on/inside buildings as some form of attachment, to save faffing around trying to park modules all over the place. Which in turn, has sacrificed internal manoeuvrability for a hastily build base.
  6. karlooo

    These are called 'construction squads'. Designing a base takes time, planning, precision. Multiple ppl will disrupt this and force you to just place structures where ever, which speeds up the construction.
    It's not possible to design with multiple ppl interfering.
    I was always against the idea of a collaborated base. But I believe this was the devs goal, by looking at the nerfs they did to the defenses, which I can't understand till now.



    Too many models yeah, you indirectly give cover to enemies in some situations with all the modules.
    What I try to do with this mess is to instead cover my essential structures, for example surround the repair mod, skyshield, spawn tube with unneeded and useless mod because they don't have the min range anymore.
    Or because Harasser has the 'Gate shield diffuse' I actually place an AT Turret (not tower) inside my base, and use the modules to prevent an enemy vehicle from hiding out of the AT turret range.

    Placing modules, spawns in the structures actually turns into a complicated issue. It makes one player attacks deadlier.
    I always try to limit to one cover in my base, either the Pillbox or Infantry tower.

    Specifically my current base design involves a Gate shield with an Infantry tower beside it (you can place these close enough that infantry can't fit through). I put the spawn inside the tower, pain spire right on the spawn, a blast wall covering the spawn and pain spire (this mostly depends on the outside landscape), and an AI tower behind the Infantry tower (because the infantry tower is taller and from the front enemies cannot destroy the AI tower).
    This is my core design and I use the useless modules to either cover the spawn from the sides or block vehicles from hiding from the AT turret.


    At the end this is all for nothing because the base will get penetrated by just outside firepower, which you cannot counter.
  7. karlooo


    Oh I forgot about this design I used to do in the past vs zergs, where I put the AT turret under cover and once entered it will move above the cover (when you enter turret they move up). This was just an idea to protect the AT turret because I found out it was not possible to defend the AT tower from attacks and would be useful to keep. This only protects the front so best place to build this is on areas covered by cliffs, areas where players can move only by road.
    [IMG]

    This is the same concept but a bit more complicated because it needs to be very precise, and sometimes it doesn't work out....basically the turret moves up and shoots in between the openings, making the AT turret untouchable.
    [IMG]

    I stopped doing these designs because the defenses are very weak, sides and back can be penetrated from the outside, cannot place the ramp for players to get over the wall anymore, big drain -> cannot lock silo...and mainly because nobody cares anymore and it will be overrun.
  8. sjtw_w_stot

    More pre-fabs and some mechanics to make the base more defendable for solo builders.

    I'd also like the ability at add to existing structures. Take East Canyon Checkpoint on Indar for an example. I'd like to 'snap' a wall to the back entrance ways into the vehicle terminal. Ability to place shield doors on the existing building across the road (the one with table and chairs in it) and place a spawn tube and gun terminal in it. You know, actually make use of the existing base structures.
  9. chamks

    there is so much balance and work to be done with it. by balance i mean that the glaive IPC completely destroys the skywall shield when it explode on that, crippling the base and destroying its top defense. the stupid game dumper orbiatal strike completely destroy the base and the explosion of the flail projectile will also destroy the base even throu shield. for **** sake the base is paper and unfinished work enough for this **** to domesticate it
  10. chamks

    and its not that i want pmb to be un-destructive or something like that. i dont build it for beauty. no. i want it to host a fight, a good fair fight, not a monkey with a dart gun that ends everything, without any effort from him.
    unlike tanks and c4. tanks can move, use awareness, teamates, repair sundy, defense mechanics: flanker armor, emergency repair, proxy radar.
  11. LordKrelas

    Glaive is your PMB system.
    Only PMBs have Skyshields, and only PMBs can disable skyshields.
    Only PMBs have Orbital Strikes, and can fire them: Which also can fire into the lattice.

    Only PMBs have such potent artillery units, and only PMB have
    • Automated Defenses
    • Ability to Seal in any sort Defenses
    • Self-repairing modules
    • One-Way Shielded Firing Ports
    • Skyshields
    • Artillery
    • Map-Wide Respawn capability
    • Radar Devices
    • Routers (Ability to have an Mini AMS in any location, including inside no-deploy zones, basically ON the points.

    PMBs share these with the Lattice
    • Pain-Fields
    • Vehicle Spawning
    • Local Respawning
    This game isn't about the Player-made-bases, nor is gameplay meant to center around the whims of Builders.
    The only tools you just complained about, Belong to the PMB tool-kit, and one of which has no relative to anything Non-construction users can touch for firepower.

    Rarely is a PMB built to be a "fun fight" or "fair" fight.
    Self-repairing NPC turrets, Pain-Fields, constantly, and slamming opponents into these high health low-exp automations & automated-damage dealers, while the Builders profit from these automations on top of whatever actions they themselves do.
    And if defending; They have all of these, which reward less than killing a player does - but the cort to make them basically is the same EXP as killing someone.

    Unlike Tanks, the PMB is able to operate by a single player, and unleash an massive amount of firepower & self-defending capabilities, quite rapidly & easily.
    With an actual ally or two, an PMB is a greater force multiplier than any MBT or Aircraft.
    Let alone, with the ability to pick the location to be as painful as possible - Which most builders do.

    PMBs in their present configuration, Encourage Builders to discourage attackers from wanting to engage them.
    PMBs also in their present configuration, also give tools to Builders to try forcing one-sided interactions on their opponents.
    (One-sided being, either you attack the latest fully automated up-cropping, or be nuked. with demands for faster firing....)
    PMBs in their previous configuration, locked the map if ignored, and killed attackers if the PMB was destroyed.

    A single tool in the PMB's box, does ANYTHING positive intentionally for their Builder's own allies.
    The Ammo dispenser, Spawn pads & Tubes, are built & positioned for the Builder's usage
    (and since it can't get close to the lattice at all, rarely helpful, let alone the usual Locked into a solid wall position - IE used only to spawn ANTs or sundies inside)
    The Defenses, only give EXP to the builders.
    The Artillery units, only kill opponents - Which is indirect help.
    The OSC kills allies & foes, into a mass grave at an entire lattice-base, with no ability to request or stop the firing process.
    (IE, that thing can be fired by an Ally, completing wiping out any allied siege on an enemy base...and you can't stop it)

    The Map-wide reinforcement, is only useful for defending the PMB, usually in a cliff-side.
    And finally the modern tool, the only one that helps Allies not at the PMB guarding it:
    The Router, an local AMS essentially, that can be placed anywhere, ignoring all deploy-zone barriers, with the PMB itself having no relation to where this thing is placed - PMB can be at warpgate, while router is at the opposite end of map in a Tree.

    PMBs benefit from every vehicle, class, and aspect in the game, past the Invulnerable walls,
    Which they used to have, furthering the grind-against-the-fort that is a one-sided affair -- And now they're a bit fragile.
    Considering they're firing one-shot kills into the lattice, allowing AMS essentially meters away from the Capture-points..
    This doesn't really help them, not be incredibly-horrific: if too durable, they're packing some absurd power behind that shield.
    If too fragile, they can't do anything practical - if they could actually be near ANYWHERE useful past a single bridge.

    Context on that: the OSC has a massive charge-time, and price.
    And several other requirements, that make using it, not all that enjoyable -- But the same can be said to the receiving end.
    Routers, have absurd power, and placement capabilities, with PMB's not needing to be local (Nor can they be)...

    If PMBs were actually supporting Allies, and a benefit to their allies, instead of murdering them just as often the poor sods on the enemy teams, IE focused on SUPPORT, not bloody Self-defense & OFFENSE firepower, it would be a lot simpler.
    Right now, every tool is either defending the PMB brutally, or providing brutal offensive firepower;
    IE OSC's, Flails, Glaives, Routers, are Offensive powers, the only thing PMBs do outside their bubble of walls.
    Inside their Bubble of walls, every single device only helps the Builder inside.
    And since their other toys, are 75% killing everyone else (friend or foe) near the target area, they don't help the Allied force.

    An Artillery barrage (not even mentioning OSC in this line), is not the best solution to every problem.
    If they actually boosted Allied forces, by existing in a nearby hex, then Now.. they are naturally, Your Best Friend to keep alive.
    And by the same reason; Enemy forces will actually want to attack them - without feeling like a pole was shoved up them.

    With a re-focus on boosting allies, and it being a local ranged effect - make that an EXP gain for the Builder passively too
    The Builder WANTS to be as close to the action as possible - not in a sodding cliff-side hole.
    And with that new focus, Bases can be reigned in close, and their builders are motivated to be close, so their defences can be boosted;
    Why & How? As they aren't able to glitch terrain as easily, since they aren't hiding in the sodding mountains as often.
    Few places near viable lanes of combat, Have mountains-of-glitch to wedge a base into - and since they aren't OSC or "Kill as much as possible" focused, their no-deploy zone can be decreased.
    And as they're not buried into invulnerable voxel glitch holes, the OSC which was designed to kill PMBs that a zerg couldn't kill due to the levels of Glitchy voxel & exploits... doesn't need to be as brutally lethal or restricted as much.
    As the PMB isn't competing for highest-kill count, It's to help the allied lines - instead of murdering it to kill 1 enemy MBT.


    So how about it?
    PMBs become bastions of Helpful, instead of Fortresses of "**** my Allies, and **** my enemies' ability to enjoy something"
    As it might be a favorite thing to be hit by an OSC - but it ain't fun being in the lattice either - with not even half the PMB toys.
    And if PMBs just modified the lattice... the sheer level of grindy automated glitch & trolling would be absurd.
    • Up x 1
  12. karlooo


    Oh yeah you reminded me of this huge problem that's being ignored.
    I actually posted a complaint on this issue when the Flail came out. It damages everything through all objects (with its indirect damage) and it's still not fixed.
    The Flail is the laziest and worst designed weapon, it really should be removed.

    I'm actually a fan of the Glaive IPC idea because it supports the teammates. It's design is beautiful and could be reworked into anything.
    But I dislike the dart gun aiming, combined with a stalker infiltrator it's very toxic and nothing the base owner can do to defend himself, even if you do destroy the enemy, the artillery bases are often cheap and undefended, the attacker will build a new one in a min. It's going to be the same story and you won't be able to stay in your own base because you'll have to hunt for this one guy.

    ________________________________________________


    This could be an interesting rework to the Glaive IPC:
    So the dart gun will be removed, instead you will have to actually control the turret just like you would with any defense turret.
    The Glaive IPC will have a low angle of depression and lower HP than the defense towers so this won't replace them.

    How you would use this weapon on long range strikes is by estimating and the area the round impacts on will be Marked on the map.

    Hitting an enemy vehicle will disable it for a couple of seconds and deals damage.

    Hitting enemy infantry will destroy and disable shields for a couple of seconds.

    This could be a pretty interesting support weapon, the owner will not have to run out of base constantly and it could be combined with squads in my opinion, where they could mark where they need the artillery support on the map.
    • Up x 1
  13. karlooo


    Massive Firepower? Where do you see that? For example an SMG is better than the Anti-Infantry Tower.
    You cannot operate and defend a PMB by one person.
    When an MBT attacks, they will destroy your AT turret, which does little damage and will always lose in a 1v1. And once this happens you lost, no way to defend yourself, you lost your only defense which pokes above your cover.
    (I had this crazy suggestion in the past that asked to give all structures - Infantry tower, wall, bunker, etc., 20mm engineer mana turrets or AT/ AI evenly mixed turret for the base owner and supporters the ability to defend from all angles)

    It's not fair that one MBT wins against a solo defended PMB and you will be solo, nobody wants to do the dirty work for you. Compare the time it takes to gain 450 resources for an MBT and the time it takes to build a whole base....9 minutes to 30+ minutes. And also don't forget about the 30,000 cert investment (all counted, you won't use all structures)


    Yes Player made bases can to everything but the problem is that it does nothing.....nothing, allies don't care, you're just designing, resupplying, for over 30 minutes just to be destroyed in the end, with no good outcome.

    And the devs really do not care, there are so many problems that are never being looked at.

    Helpful as Router bases? What this will do is kill construction even more, unless all structures get completely remade into something new.
    Currently the base owner needs to stay in his own base, he cannot leave constantly....it has to be a fortress of doom. If you don't like it ask for construction to be removed and refunded, if there is no plan to completely rework construction.
  14. LordKrelas

    One-shot killing everything inside a Lattice base is pretty damn powerful.
    3-Shot Killing a Shielded Sunderer (Flail) is pretty powerful for a long-range Weapon, that costs only cort, which can be harvested in the thousands rapidly & faster than Nanites.
    The ability to destroy shields & deployables in a mass area, while disabling Skyshields is also pretty potent.
    The ability to deploy an AMS that ignores all placement restrictions, is pretty damn powerful.

    These idle toys, they cost cort.
    A collectable resource, that spawns in millions of units, and is rapidly harvested, to be stored in bulk.

    The Anti-Infantry tower, is a fully automated Weapon platform, which if better at its job would remove the ability of infantry to properly infiltrate PMBs.
    And it's quite literally a massive spit-fire, with a longer range, that requires explosives to damage.
    Unlike an SMG, it also can attack for you, without your control of it, freeing you to do other things.

    An MBT, is the largest & most expensive land vehicle in the game, and is multi-crew.
    Your AV turret, is the same one we have on the Lattice, that works against Lighting tanks, except construction can fully automate the turret which has the eye of the gods - before the Automated ranges & damage were nerfed, it was an AV Sniper spit-fire.
    A Place & Forget Anti-armor; You should not be placing a turret that can Solo a two-man vehicle.
    It is the most powerful land unit, an Automated defense should not laugh at it.
    You, are in a team game - get allies, or... Get your own MBT, if not just understanding that the largest & heaviest enemy land vehicle isn't being solo'ed by a single man's automated defenses by itself.

    A Solo PMB, is a Solo-built PMB in a team game, full of automated defenses, facing the largest, most expensive land unit in the game, that is also a multi-crew vehicle.
    If a single Builder could best the largest vehicle possible, with their automated defenses;
    An actual build squad would end the ability of even Zergs to do anything but die.


    PMBs right now, are pointless for allies to defend.
    Usually they're no-where useful, and bombing allies at the same time as enemies.
    Why do you defend an PMB, that has no tactical value to your allies, and doesn't care that you exist outside of free bodies to block shots? It doesn't help them assault the next base, it doesn't help them defend, it doesn't provide any practical usage.
    And it can't be positioned near anywhere useful - and if it was, It doesn't still have any reason for the Builders to be that close.
    When an Allied PMB is in region, all it means is that Artillery might murder all of your allies at the nearby lattice base, or someone is about to make a respawn point inside the buildings of the Lattice-base.
    If they aren't OSC, and aren't router or flail & glaive, they have nothing that does anything past their walls.
    if they are OSC, they hurt as much as they help.
    Why in **** would Allies defend this automated base? it doesn't even reward them in the process, and it is used mostly to friendly-fire kill them in bulk, or is just a router deployment - rapidly rebuilt.

    PMBs used to be even more glitchy than they are right now, with their focus on far-reaching tools of offense.
    So the Devs seem to care a wee bit, about PMB power... after all they gave them new defensive tools & more artillery.
    Which included the Pain Fields from spawn rooms; Unavoidable AOE damage through solid walls.
    (and the ability to fire a one-shot mass-AOE OSC into any lattice base nearby)

    And I literally suggested they gain the ability to buff allies, not focus on Routers.
    As nearly every tool in the Toolbox of a Builder, stacks up hard, and gives nothing to anyone else that isn't accidental.
    Like did you read any of the closing bit that was quoted?
    The point was to get PMBs re-focused away from "Build Base far away as possible, as hard to approach as possible, Build Weapon to fire" to "Build Base near the allied front-line , Build systems to buff allies, help the allied front-line"

    As right now, no PMB actually helps allies, past providing Routers which are the most potent AMS unit known to mankind, and OSCs - Which kill allies as much as enemies in a base, making Friendly OSCs able to cripple the allied advance as much as help it.
    Since the PMB is typically "Killing enemies near, or Far away to draw them near" and being used as artillery bases..
    Which doesn't encourage allies to defend them, any more than they'd defend an Allied MBT lobbing HEAT right next to their feet if an Enemy gets in their LOS.
    In case that comparison isn't clear in purpose: The Tank is firing without concern of their allies, killing them if it nets a kill, while shouting "Repair me" - Which isn't most MBT drivers, but is most OSC users.
    Let alone the MBT has a small blast radius, while the OSC can kill every allied Max, infantry or vehicle across an entire base, instead of a doorway.
  15. sjtw_w_stot

    Meh, PMB's can be useful when the Gods and stars align. I like to roll up to Nason Defense on Hossin in a fully loaded Ant behind the main armor push and drop shield gates and walls right at the front during the push. We nuked the hell out of an OS just yesterday by doing this.
  16. karlooo


    There is no long range weapon that one shots...the OS kills with knocks back.

    The Flail is a weapon I would not praise, it's one of the worst and laziest designs.
    It only costs cort but what do you have to do to get it? Buy a 200 cost ANT, drive for a couple of minutes...lets say you don't want a fully designed base but just a Flail, you could possibly build this faster than you get 200 resources back if you're lucky, Cortium is all about luck.
    The question is how to you get to the battle? You will have to sacrifice a new vehicle or use your ANT....if your Flail strike fails, you have to buy another vehicle, and maybe even a third.
    Not only it costs to get to battle, it takes time to find the resources and at the end you'll have to possibly reconstruct the abse because the Flail has just an approx 600m+ range.

    I would not applaud the Routing Spire either...in my opinion this, with the OS change were the worst updates to construction.
    In the objective it's useful, it actually shares space with enemy or allied Routers I believe by 70 m, you can place it anywhere but it shows on the map and has little HP.
    But it's a terrible update to PMB's.


    The Anti-Infantry tower is a joke. You can't rly compare this to a spitfire....it's like 50 times bigger and when somethings big it attracts attention and will be destroyed first. (you also need an AI mod for it to work)
    I purposefully try to hide the Anti-Infantry tower behind the Infantry tower to protect it from frontal,outside attacks because it sort of stops infantry from infiltrating my base like you said...but phase 2 doesn't happen because tanks can destroy my base from the outside without having to get inside and weakening it.
    So basically having it or not will make no difference, especially with the 'gate shield diffuser' vehicles that can provide cover from this.
    I agree that the AT turret shouldn't win a battle with the 2 man MBT but the MBT shouldn't be able to penetrate my walls and gates....I lose my defense and then how I am supposed to stop the MBT?


    Your not even going to get a construction squad because the players are not going to do the dirty work for the owner while he OS, uses Router in battle.


    Grab an MBT? Then why did I even build the base if I need to grab an MBT to defend?

    But yes you are right about the PMB's being ignored by allies, not providing anything useful for the objective other than Routers.

    But actually there is one thing I had the most success with. It's hard and sometimes random....it's a road block to stop zergs. I used to do that in the past when the structure shield module gave shield HP to structures.
    Basically I had to pay attention to the map, build a base in a location that cannot be avoided and has to be punched through. To gain even more support I sometimes placed a HIVE in there lol.
    It caused a lot of damage, it could stop over 50 units, 10 tanks, massive armies, but the HIVE did the work, it made me receive support, the toughness of the walls made me receive support. The base could receive an incredible beating, giving enough time for allies to come.

    Now the whole construction is a joke....The essential HIVE was taken away and also received brutal nerfs for no reason after.
    • Up x 1
  17. Trigga

    I actualy found HIVE bases to be much easier to destroy.
    It was like an armed nuke sitting waiting for me at every base.

    You lot moan about 1 MBT destroying your base, and taking 10s of minutes to do it.
    1 stalker infil could destroy the old one within seconds, go figure.....
  18. karlooo


    Yeah I remember that but where these problems fixed? No, construction has even more problems now than ever, so what's your point?
  19. LordKrelas

    You're an automated self-repairing Base, built by 1 builder.
    Your weapon has the AOE of an entire Lattice-base - and you're complaining it isn't straight killing everything in the first instant?

    It's a howitzer.
    If you manage to lose a cloakable ANT, that only takes damage from AV weapons... that's on you.
    Most Artillery users, use a stalker set-up for the permanent cloaking if they want to get closer to their targeting area.
    And heaven forbid, it isn't "Place, and instantly killing" for a point & click high-damage artillery blast.


    You wouldn't applaud the ability to place a respawn location, where not a single AMS, or beacon, or anything else can be placed..
    Do you not like a superior placement AMS? Oh since it shows on the map, yeah that saves the Sunderer a lot from attacks..
    Just being on the map, means nothing when you can actually place it with intelligence with barely a placement restriction.
    We have Beacons, that physically Point an arrow to their exact location in open-sky, and they're one of the more effective means of quick reinforcement - Routers affect the entire base fight instead of just 12 guys.


    Have you ever used a spitfire?
    PMBs were designed that Infantry are expected to get inside the walls & take out modules, while Tanks take out the tower defenses.
    The AI turret uses the same tech as the Lattice base's Rare AI, the Spitfire & it are pretty similar.
    It spins around, and while Bigger: it also is immune to bullets, requiring explosives.
    The effectiveness of 1 single AI tower by itself, is quite literally a spitfire - If you used them, you'd get the comparison properly.
    (Spitfires are not the tools of gods, but used properly they are an early-warning system)

    If the tanks couldn't destroy the Tower, Infantry would be shredded trying.
    And since the PMBs are built around Modules guarded by Walls & Automated Defenses, the fact it expects infantry to disable the modules, means the MBTs are expected to breach exterior defenses, and infantry to not be perfectly erased automatically by the base.
    Perhaps not use a gate, or at least expect that possibility? The Gates share the same systems as the lattice.
    It's kinda a question of "Why does a PMB have immunity to the Diffuser which barely has a use"?

    Why did you grab an MBT if you built an Automated Base by yourself?
    Why do you not AFK, inside your base? Oh, as it's not meant to be able to handle every threat by itself without any user action.
    If an MBT is your bane, and you refuse to work to Find & lead or join a Build Squad (VS has tons of these), Then you need to actually be ready to fight an MBT.
    And since you apparently won't set-up anything in advance, I gave the best solution to an MBT that a solo-player can do with as little pre-planning; driving their own MBT supported by their AV Turret, this gives you the benefits of both worlds.
    (And this is how Build squads are more effective; Not only more construction users but they use the sodding vehicles & infantry play from Lattice-combat in defense)



    HIVEs:
    Where if people don't grind your base to oblivion in the first minute it appears, the entire map locks.
    Killing every single fight on the map - due to PMBs sitting at the worlds edge wedged into Voxels.
    and if the Hive was finally destroyed; It killed the victors, wiping out their nanites & more.

    PMBs have received new toys.
    It lost Invulnerable walls, as go figure, these were endlessly used & glitched to make PMBs that couldn't be scratched.
    Not due to skill, but due to glitches.
    Are they too fragile now? Sure.
    But they're also being used to Fire into the lattice, as a constant wipe-mechanic, with no interaction in the slightest.

    PMBs need to be re-designed, to be support bases.
    Not your Automated Kill-bots.
    • Up x 1
  20. iller

    The Simplest statement to possibly be made about the Player Base IMO is:
    -- >> The A.V. Turret should not take FULL DAMAGE from long range Tank & Sundy fire.

    "Peak and Shoot" is literally an Exploit against A.I. controlled turrets. One that's been allowed in games since konami's Contra.
    That doesn't mean it's an acceptable way to let players bypass all challenge and "Hit Trade".

    I would gladly accept ANY kind of compromises just to make the AV turret less useless against ground Vehicles sniping it from complete safety .... Let it take 3x as much damage from Aircraft is one solution. Let it take double damage from the Flail. Let it be blown up instantly by just 3 C4 bricks or 5 tank mines detonated at its base is another additional proposal. Let H.A. rockets completely disable its Repair regen to allow Infantry Attrition against the A.V. turret. That's also fine. Let EMP nades disable it for 10 seconds. Let Infiltrators manually disable it for 5 seconds at a time by jamming their knife in it. (with a 5 second cooldown before they can "hack" it again). Let the EMP Howitzer disable it for 5 seconds too.

    Add in whatever Vulnerabilities are required so that ground vehicles sniping them suffer real Range Falloff penalties.