Base building needs work.

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

  1. TR5L4Y3R


    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    ! ! ! ! T H I S ! ! ! !
  2. karlooo

    Yeah Im up for this, but what type of support?

    Would it be this type of support (Glaive idea copied from this topic)?:
    _________________

    “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.”
    _________________

    Or support like a Router base which doesn’t let you stay and forces you to constantly leave? Which I am very against.

    You know what’s interesting? A lot of ppl suggest find a team to build with but most structres have a limited range in between eachother...build together! But for example the Artillery weapons have a limited distance of a couple hundred meters....this doesn’t really encourage to build together.
    If players could build multiple long range guns in the same base then there would be a reason to cooperate.
  3. LordKrelas

    Certainly not that: That is quite literally Offense, and crippling the enemy with now indirect murder.
    PMBs do not need more long-range weapon... Nor be focused as Artillery, as said, that ain't doing them any favors.
    Hence the "support" not "Kill the enemy, Cripple them at mass range"
    If I wanted them to be focused on "Killing" Support, I'd stare at their numerous artillery pieces.. which are part of the issue.

    A Builder sitting in their 20 meter hole, constantly firing shots to cripple or indirectly kill, supports & encourages those Artillery bases, wedged into rocks, that only serves the Builder.

    I suggested buffing Allies in range.
    Like better Shield recovery times, Biolab automatic healing, hell you could go with reduced respawn-times, or just faster energy recovery.
    Tie granting these buffs to allies to an EXP gain; the more allies affected, the more EXP gained per refresh tick of the buff.
    This means, Builder wants to directly buff the front-line to max out the gain, and Allies want to defend that place to keep the buffs.
    Makes it a natural & mutual positive interaction.

    Rather than , Builder lands blows at Opponent's skull, from as far away as possible, spamming shots, from as brutally-automated base as possible, in the most glitchy spot they can find.


    Routers? No.
    Your allies at least directly benefit from routers, but I wouldn't make them the focus.


    The last thing, PMBs need, is numerous long-range guns focused in smaller compact zones.
    As that reinforces the "Hide in a glitched ravine" hell-hole spot, while basically automating the base, and firing at opponents who can't do anything past endlessly hunt automated Farming-machines.
    IE, everything horrid about Shelling-spawns via Tanks, but at further ranges with no hope to even return a single shot at it.
    Thats' what the interaction between PMB with Artillery is; One-sided endless barrage, while the Opponent at best gets to attack an NPC wall.

    Meaning No, to your Glaive.
    No to your Artillery Batteries.
    Actually support the front-line as your focus;
    Not how many people you can kill from a hex away, damning your allies to friendly-fire.
    If your PMB is artillery, It can not be a durable SOB, as otherwise, everyone has to grind against a fully automated wall that just delivers easier-than-sin kills across a hex or further - which is not enjoyable at all.

    And rarely ever is helping the front line, Having an PMB just firing explosive rounds into your fight, isn't all that grand, when the Builder doesn't have any idea what you need, and will happily land it at your feet if it gives a kill.
    OSCs are a great example; Killing every single person at a base, does not help your allies, as you just murdered them all, including every max they had.
    Flails? Fighting more of those, would be as fun as being spawn-camped by an invulnerable cannon.
    Glaives being more of a Pissant, that the Shooter would never have to even leave their walls to piss on people? Oh gods no.

    Supporting the frontline, is not hiding an PMB in a hill, taking pot-shots with a massive cannon, and killing tons of friendlies due to blind fire...
    As you are aiming for Kills, or crippling opponents without even having to engage them.
    It isn't a fun time, being rained on from a hex away - when the only interaction to that, is get shot, or grind a wall that repairs-itself.

    So no, Not support as in, you firing more Artillery rounds.
    Support , as in PMBs benefiting the team more than how many Kills they get (let alone at the cost of the entire allied force)
    PMBs would for once, be a Positive boon for nearby allies, rather than a Good chance to
    • Be killed by friendly fire - Which is the OSC & numerous artillery devices
    • Be locked out of fights - which was HIVEs in a nutshell.
    Actually benefiting from an PMB, without having to be a Builder who made it... Imagine that.
    And it not being a side-effect of mass-murder, but intended.
    Akin to a medic triggering their Mass-heal is directly helpful to the allies & the medic.
    Unlike say, throwing a Concussion grenade into an allied group, while only the thrower is immune to the effects.
    Sure, it gets some of the Enemy killed, but it also royally screws numerous allies without warning.







  4. karlooo


    Yeah it is offense, but what can you do with a cannon that disables and weakens enemies without your allies there...it's more off a support weapon.
    I don't think this can team kill either or negatively effect your team unless you are purposefully doing it. If you do hit allies multiple times your weapon should get locked like normally.

    Spamming would be an issue. A simple fix could be to give the cannon the ability to overheat after excessive use. For example 30 second for the weapon to cool down after overheating, 6 or more shots in total.


    I so far don't see a problem with teammates placing a second or third cannon in the same base, but it should not disable shields on structures and counter them.
    I do not think that any long range weapon should be able to delete or disable PMB's...because they do not have any way to fight back, they're just a sitting duck:
    Yesterday I got 60 kills in a single battle over a territory, not making this up. There was a big base in the middle of the territory, all I did was stalker cloak spam a Flail at it....there was no counter, no protection against this.
    This is not the type of artillery I am imagining when suggesting this. No stalker infiltrator, 100% accurate strikes. Instead estimated shots, that need someone, a leader to mark where the shots are needed on the map, and also need to be followed up.


    PMB's built in holes is a map problem, some small abusable areas on a map shouldn't effect construction as a whole. These areas on the map should be updated.

    _________________________________________________________________


    Going to talk about the 60 kill Flail strike again. Basically what happened during this incident was some lone players attempted to flank and destroy the Flail base because it's just Fing annoying. Basically when I lost it, all I did was redeploy or drive there and quickly rebuilt it, rebuilt lost structures in seconds (it was hard to solo flank because of mass amounts of allies in the territory).
    I'm not a fan of just rebuilding the damaged base in seconds, with little cost....

    In my opinion the structure costs should go up and drain should go down, and the defenses should also get buffed too, their ridiculous.
    Because by making the drain high it's discouraging construction players to create a full base, protect their structures, with the low cost it's encouraging cheap, quick bases instead of 30 minute designs that most of the time fail and cause complications.

    The weak walls and vehicles gates are again discouraging players to actually design their base.
    For example I see a lot of players build a Silo and OS with a distance between...And why even bother with the rest, you lose your Silo? Build another. OS is being attacked? Attack the enemy back.

    This is also a one man base issue. Even with the buffed defenses the owner can't defend by himself. Allowing players to build multiple long range guns together, increase cost of the structures, will encourage construction players to cooperate together.

    Currently adding structures into someones base is sort of griefing, because you're just increasing his drain rate making it harder to keep the base alive for the owner, if you don't decide to resupply nonstop.



    (pls explain your idea more in detail, I have no idea)

    Buffing allies in range? The battles moves fast, even for a Flail, the 650 meter range is not good enough.

    In my opinion just buffing allies by a tiny bit is like as if nothing happened, it's unnoticeable really.
  5. LordKrelas

    It's a weapon, fired from as far away as possible, as far from any retaliation as possible, that is intended to be blind-fired constantly.
    It is quite literally an affair of endless shelling.

    A 2nd or 3rd Cannon in an automated self-repairing base, allowing them to focus fire onto the same spot easier, while sharing their defenses & needing less area to defend.
    PMBs are currently the only Long-range attackers, that can strike anything without any risk;
    Only PMBs have the OSC, which can wipe out the lattice & itself.
    Only PMBs have the flail, can can assault PMBs.
    Only PMBs have the glaive which shuts down Skyshields.

    Lattice Bases are physically incapable of moving & never are in a different spot, with not a single defense against OSC's, and the only reason Flails & Glaives don't completely shut them down when existing, is that they can only fire into their zones by little bypass tactics.

    The Flail is the perfect example of rapid-fire uncounterable artillery, that you want more of.


    PMBs built around slinging shots, encourage being as far away as possible, which makes these hellish glitch holes viable.
    HIVEs encouraged it, as you wanted the best defense & didn't need to care about being near anything.
    OSCs & other artillery don't care either, built just to nuke a base & repeat at incredible range.


    The drain is an actual issue yes.
    The weak walls, are due to how Construction is used.
    PMBs are these massively powerful long-range artillery & AMS Providers.
    If they were incredibly defensible, the sheer speed of rebuild would ensure constant Nuking per each PMB with barely a moment of not having to assault an PMB nearby - while the Router bases would be an absolute nightmare to stop.


    PMB Builders already gain the ability to place multiple modules, more turrets, more everything working together in a squad.
    You do not need the ability to make an even more compact & easier to defend Artillery-platform of Multiple artillery guns.
    That just means when an Flail is available, now there's 4x the firepower, 4x faster firing-cycle times, and the defenses are 4x closer & more compact, making it harder to destroy but easier to build.
    It would amplify the current problems with PMB Artillery base spam.


    Do you increase the volume of Grenades thrown into a Room, if AOE Weapon spam is a problem, that is holding back your health pools? no.
    As that increases the severity of the problem.


    Unlike Guns, buffs can easily be a lot further.
    And unlike Guns, the fact they're not exceeding long-range is a benefit.
    It means the PMB is less likely to shove itself into a ravine.
    And since it's not nuking the battlefield, it's not as far away as possible, it becomes central.
    You know what Central PMBs unlike OSC platforms, need? Decent Defenses & Armor.
    You what a Centrally Located PMB, that isn't lobbing one-shot kills encourages? Buffs to PMB Wall health.
    Why? As it's required to be destroyed quickly, due to it denying the ability exist to the enemy time, with base-wide one-shots.

    The Focus of PMBs on Mass-slaughter, does not help PMBs with survival.
    As if they were highly durable, their Sheer damage-output becomes an issue - as they're expected to be destroyed often.
    Or the entire enemy team, gets to die, to an unblockable shot - while the PMB is rapidly constructed.
    If too durable, while possessing that level of firepower, the PMB is built faster than lost, making it a constant.

    So if their entire purpose, is Buffing the Allied forces in a large decent proximity, which grants EXP to the Builder (This is to make it profitable & mutually benefiting)
    This means, they want to be close to the fight.
    Allies want to defend them, as it directly helps them with the fight - and doesn't involve nearly murdering them.
    The exact buffs are debatable, but they are at least valuable in any form - and hard to provide to the best if PMB is crammed into a ravine.

    Artillery does not do this: Artillery, let alone blind-fire, is as helpful as Grenade-spam fired from the opposite end of the base over a wall.
    It's as likely to nail friendlies as enemies, the goal is killing - any help is an accident- and they want to be as far away as possible , with their survival not a benefit or loss at all, compared to if they miss a shot.


    PMBs need to stop trying to rival the entire allied team, on kill counts.
    Let alone Solo Builders, playing with Nukes, it's more often a hindrance to the allies, and to the enemy, It's just painful.
    Only the Builder benefits, and they place themselves where it is negatively-affecting for any Ally to be, whom isn't a builder.
    They're placed so damn far & into glitch holes, as they attack from as far as possible - Like a Spawn-room Sheller.
    No motive to be in a more tactical location, nor benefit to the Builder if they did: And no benefit to anyone else regardless.
    As that artillery is as handy as a unresponsive allied tank firing AOE Shells directly into the Allied held Doorway:
    As likely to nail the friendlies as the enemy, a single miss kills the entire allied force, and you know they aren't listening.
  6. karlooo


    Ok I'll make myself more clear. Construction has a lot of problems and I'm just throwing a bunch of suggestions and issues, and I know they can't be all implemented.

    About the long range weapons, I hate all of the dart controlled guns. The OS, Flail, Glaive IPC....I hate all of them, and I want them deleted.
    But for the Glaive IPC I have an exception. What I love about this weapon is that it supports and doesn't delete. But what I do not like about this gun is that it's designed to counter PMB's, because they have no way to fight back, they just have to sit and take it.
    I do not think PMB's should counter each other.

    With my Glaive IPC idea, I just want to give construction a new meta that will replace the in my opinion failed OS, Flail long range guns.

    So my suggestion to the rework of the Glaive IPC was to make it a blind fired cannon like you said, where it gets intelligence from the rounds that impact. The player gets the impact location on the map and that's how he will set up the firing angle.
    The rounds will not be powerful enough to stop base shields, but will deal some damage, ruin infantry shields, and maybe disable vehicles for a short period (some idea off the top of my head, vs vehicles).
    This is too simply explained. I think it will require much more, like overheating to not allow spam (cooldown 30 seconds, overheat after 5 shots example), ability to change projectile velocity, give the player more control and tools rather than just shoot and guess...

    But what could this do?
    If the players could build multiple of these in one spot. Would players rather build a couple hundred meters away and make their own base or try to cooperate with someone?
    I think these guns could be combined with regular platoons, squads. If the platoon leader can mark where he wants the artillery, this could turn into something very interesting.
    Much more interactive than PMB's have ever been.

    I'm not worried about the friendly fire because you have to do that on purpose. Like if there is a battle at a lattice base no one will just start shooting at it without knowing what's going on.
    Spamming like you said would do nothing with the overheating idea I mentioned and without intel of where the enemies could be.

    If bases get the long range gun reworked, then PMB's defenses shouldn't get buffed but maybe even nerfed more.


    But yeah if the main point of bases is long range strikes than the builders will try to hide them, making it harder to penetrate and attack. Low risk, but I don't know what you expect from a massive fortification lol.


    Oh so this is something like a HIVE. But I don't know. Long range proximity buffing is very random, I don't think it would be fun to just suddenly fight buffed enemies at the next base.
    This a bit reminds me of the heavy assault, no way to win the duel if you're any other class.
    So basically one side will be at a disadvantage, the question is how will they stop the long range buffs? Do they like stop capturing the base, create full armor and try to delete the base inside the enemy territories?

    If the owner only receives XP, then no base builders will support you.

    I actually can't understand this well.
  7. LordKrelas

    If they can fire it solo, from the safest position, they are not going to coordinate with anyone.
    Let alone if it gives them correction data on the map; They will blind-fire.
    There is few things worse, than Artillery being fired from absolute safety, for the enemy;
    Being half-healthed (half your health is shields) at near random, with no possible counter-play? Horrid.
    Being attacked by an artillery unit blindly, across miles? Piss-poor.

    Why would they coordinate? They can fire by themselves blindly, at massive range. They need no one.
    They profit if they hit.
    Allies? They have to pray it's not on their head; It's entirely for the builder, anything the allies again is by accident.

    OSCs & Flails, right now, do not need to coordinate - and their users are LOCAL compared to your suggestion.
    Their only difference, is the User HAS to expose themselves for a period near the blast zone with a dart.
    Your suggestion, Removes the entire exposure meaning they never leave their hole - never have to travel, and are never exposed or even near the target area, cloaked or not.
    Making it even easier for them to just endlessly attack, as all risk is gone.


    Now multiples of these in one spot?
    Oh goodly, an endless rain of Glaive rounds erasing any notion of shields constantly, while each cannon is protected by shared Defenses, modules, and need less space for all that firepower.
    Making their Spam platform even easier & safer - one they never have to leave.


    When you are blind firing, or firing AOEs with intent to kill, your massive AOE means friendly-fire is a thing.
    Let alone both at the same time; Look at the OSC.

    If the defenses are weakened any further, the only purpose of the PMBs will be ruining the day of others, and being a hindrance at best to Allies unless they own the cannon.
    PMBs being grind-walls, that force attacks by murdering everything at extreme range means no counter-play, and the interaction is as bad as possible - Mean while, Allies gain nothing from these things.


    It is less fun, to be rained down upon by an PMB a hex over, where the only solution is to attack an NPC wall, repeatedly.
    And every few minutes that happens again.
    While for the allies of that PMB; They have to dodge artillery rounds fired by their own ally.

    Right now, the opponent & ally are being nailed by Friendly-fire one-shot kills & similar, that require them to literally not be engaged, but running to attack the walls of an PMB.
    Builders have the advantage in the defensive fight, and have a one-sided interaction when engaging others in attacks.
    Typically one-shot kills across an entire base.
    The only person getting EXP from Artillery is the Artillery user - No one else benefits at all, past not being dead.

    The Buff provides a direct positive boon to allies: this reward them, and they get to keep it, if the Builder's base is alive.
    The Builder gets rewarded for providing the Boon, and this is complemented by ally assistance in defending it.
    The enemy naturally can have their own PMB, assault the PMB, or fight the harder fight - but have a chance.
    There is no chance, when you are instantly dead to something that has no counter-play.

    A Boon is easier to balance, than a Massive cannon being fired from a hex away, where the Shooter is never exposed to risk.
    If no Builder will support, as the Boon provider gets the extra EXP... Hell, a raw solution to this, is to not make the buffs stack but allow multiple generators relatively - or squad-level EXP affinity for someone in the squad having the Provider.
    That also solves, the Build squad not being rewarded for cooperation in construction easily.

    I ask why exactly your Artillery buddies would support, you'd be stealing their kills.
    Which would be all their concern is about; A solo killing spree, with a large cannon.
  8. karlooo

    So you want all long range weapons removed? That's ok to me.


    They can blind fire solo but it won't happen. Why would people shoot at an area they don't have vision off?
    You can blind fire the the AV turret at possible targets 1+ km away...and do you see anyone doing that? Maybe 1/50 shots could hit something. You can blind fire HESH from an MBT into a lattice base from long distances, what's that going to do, nearly nothing.
    Everything is useless without accurate aiming.

    Solo players will use this long range weapon to attack targets at short range, things they have vision of. But you are maybe right that attacking these types of bases could get annoying....Don't rly think a cannon that's limited to shooting 5 times before overheating for 30 seconds would be annoying, but possibly multiple cannons in the same base could be.

    It's random yeah but almost everything is random in this game. No counter? Just move away, your not being chased for example you would be by air, your just being bombarded by a long range gun that will be on cool-down, and is designed to weaken you.


    So you would rather have a nuke with a 300 meter diameter knock-back...than some smaller low CD howitzer weapon that weakens enemies only with accurate aim, which requires someone to mark areas for it to attack long range targets?

    In lattice bases it could be annoying, I really don't know....I can test it out by flying above the zone and shooting Flail's at it, to see how it goes.

    ?


    But enough with the Glaive IPC idea I came up with in 5 minutes.
    What type of buffs you imagining?
  9. LordKrelas

    I swear you don't actually play Planetside.

    You know, the one place that blind-fire, will reliably always nail a shot? It's the place I always reference to being a Buzz-kill of a time; Spawn-rooms, they never move.
    Same with known choke-points - Why would people blind-fire at long-range if they can't see it? As they know people will be.
    And from perfect safety, nothing stops them from doing it: Why do you think people throw grenades over walls they can't even see over, why People want the Flail to shoot into Bases? (The flail change, is so they can nail the spawnroom, capture points & choke-points, where Infantry have to travel)

    Infinite Ammo, no cost in trying, and if they did truly need someone:
    Oh boy, 1 ally just has to say "Yeah fire there"
    Mean while, everyone else has to go across the hex, and take out an entire PMB.
    When a sniper is taking pot-shots, Cover actually works properly, and they are incredibly fragile - PMBs aren't that level of fragile.
    You can not expect a weapon able to fire solo, across miles, to not be done - We have Solo-piloted MBTs & Liberators.
    We have the rare Solo-piloted Harasser, and that thing has no Operator-gun.

    Also if you could simply "Not be there" or "Leave", you wouldn't be in any fight, or being engaged by someone.
    As that is when it matters - When there is nothing else at hand, Yeah you can Run away from being half-halved constantly.
    As nothing can take advantage of it.
    This is why, OSC's actually net kills; As it's not as simple as 'oh, instant teleport' , as that isn't a viable option every moment.
    I don't see people saying that about Snipers, Tanks, or aircraft: "Oh, it's nailing you, and it's miles away? Just abandon everything, if you won't abandon everything to attack a wall"


    Imagine EMP Grenade Spam.
    Now imagine, it not being a Ghost cap, and there actually being a fight.
    Constant shield loss, due to someone barely in the hex, firing over cover, gets pretty "what the ****", when they aren't even there, and have no risk at all doing it.
    A HESH tank spawn-camping has more risk.

    ...........
    You mean the several times I've explained example buffs, that wouldn't be "oi more death from the sky"?
    Here's a re-cap of the last time.
    "
    I suggested buffing Allies in range.
    Like better Shield recovery times, Biolab automatic healing, hell you could go with reduced respawn-times, or just faster energy recovery.
    Tie granting these buffs to allies to an EXP gain; the more allies affected, the more EXP gained per refresh tick of the buff.
    This means, Builder wants to directly buff the front-line to max out the gain, and Allies want to defend that place to keep the buffs.
    Makes it a natural & mutual positive interaction.
    "

    Bio-lab automatic healing, this means recovery of allies not being directly shot is improved.
    Better shield recovery time, means less shield delay.
    Faster Energy Recovery (so medics can heal more, LA's can fly more often etc)
    Slight Respawn Delay reduction (a second or so, nothing too major)

    None being a raw Damage Resistance or Damage boost, as that gets a bit hectic too easily.
    But valuable enough, to change the fight.
    Hell, you could give some Ammo-Recovery to Vehicles, so they gain ammo every so many ticks.
    A free ammo-printer essentially; So they aren't left out so much.
  10. karlooo

    Yeah it could happen that my suggestion to the gun will make it toxic addition to the game. Btw it's not as simple as you think.

    So yeah sure bases will buff, why not. Doesn't sound bad...I would possibly like it.

    Or a better suggestion: Construction should be removed and refunded so the construction players can stop with this mess and invest and play the real game, and also for the devs to not waste time on this.
  11. LordKrelas

    A better suggestion that something that was invested by the devs, & players, into, is to dump it, after what, a year of work & expenses on it?
    Do we drop Aircraft next?
    Maxes?

    You flip flop way too hard.
    First, you're focused on making Artillery bases easier, next it's the Dart guns exposing the Artillery users are bad, Yet the artillery itself was apparently fine,
    Exterminating PMBs was apparently bad, but not if launched against Lattice? When it can't do it itself?

    [IMG]
    Pick an issue & stick to it.
    More conflicting requests, notice the Construction ones?
    First, it's not powerful enough - since it's not Map-locking & invulnerable walls.
    Then it's "Give them Super-tanks that maul everything in their way"
    Now it's "Remove Construction"

    A better suggestion isn't to make 'vanish' a massive system that was paid for.
    As that isn't viable as a solution; As that point, Planetside-2 would become the Arena.

    In short; If you're going to debate about what Bases need, stick to it.
    Not mystically flop to "Best idea is to remove it all" after your idea is shown to likely be hellish spawn-camping-levels of content.
    I had to repeat a listed idea 3 times, as you asked as if I never talked about it.

    Do you even play this game?
    [IMG]
    I normally don't care, but you have pages of threads that read as if only a wiki-was-used for Any information.
    Or kill-streak videos, as the only pool of information.

    Why did you bother making threads, on Construction, and 5 replies to me here, if you're going to pull "The best Solution is erasing everything"
    As if that was the point of trying to get even easier Artillery spam & stronger walls.

    A better suggestion isn't to remove content.
    Let alone after wasting someone's time, of saying it, In the middle of an actual debate on re-working construction.
    akin to "Flipping the table" when your hand isn't winning.
  12. karlooo


    Now you're just provoking for no reason. I don't see a problem with any of my topics you posted, what?

    I don't want construction removed because apparently my idea is proven to be bad, I still believe my idea is better than yours, and I don't see a problem with Lattice base bombardment if it won't damage ppl through walls.
    I really don't get what's so hard to understand about this? I'll explain it very simply.
    -My Glaive IPC suggestion is to remake it into a larger caliber AV turret, which will have tools to attack targets at longer ranges and will weaken them...where do you see the spawn camp? It will overheat after 5 shots for 30 seconds, where do you see spam? This is actually under powered.
    This idea may not be ideal but currently the construction is an awful experience, that needs to be changed. I'm not the PS2 developer so what do you expect?


    Why I said 'Or construction can be removed' is because the devs in charge pretty much did remove it and if they don't know how to finish it they should erase it, it's just a negative force to the game, tricking ppl into buying an unfinished product for an incredibly high price.. They took away core components and created a mess instead of fixing it.

    Your idea is interesting but in my opinion it will do absolutely nothing and construction will still be same. Unless you meant something else, that's why I was asking multiple times for more info.
    And when I think about the current construction I see no hope in it.

    Don't be rude and ignorant.
  13. DemonicTreerat

    Pretty much sums up construction. Unless you get lucky to land the warpgate that gives you the best spots fast and at least 4 other players helping, you aren't going to achieve anything. But because Wrel and his apes "balance" on personal experience (aka what they want) and best-case scenarios we have to put up with there ********.

    That said here are a few ideas to actually fix the system.

    One. Remove the restriction of 1 turret of each type (AV, AI, AA) per player. Instead let players put down any type of turret up to a specific maximum number of TOTAL turrets that is actually reasonable. Say 5 total turrets. Yes that would make a base with mostly a specific type of turret hellish for that type of unit to attack. Which means the base is actually able to defend itself - at the cost of being weaker against the other types of target. See? Balance doesn't have to be "just above piss poor at doing everything unless spammed" Wrel.

    Two. Drop the piss-poor "modules as ground objects". Really. Its just plain lazy *** coding that we have to put up with a *********** of modules strewn across bases because the builder has to try to keep each object in range of a module type (repair, AI, etc) without running into the "too close to other deployables" ********. From the start Daybreak should have followed the lead of every other game that lets players build in the world. Hooks. Give every construction object a set number of "hook points" that can be filled by modules. Those modules in turn only affect that object and can be disabled by EMP grenades (short duration), Glaive strikes (longer duration), or hacking (permanent until repaired/ rehacked). The only "in world" module should be the sky shield, reinforcements, and alarm modules as those have to affect multiple object or server as a fixed point for some other effect. No more module mess and now modules don't have to be balanced on the assumption of how many structures they might affect because the more modules (say repair) added the bigger the drain on the silo. Again. Balance without the ********.

    Third. Add the option of an aerial view when holding construction items or (ideally both) install a "snap to" system so that walls & structures can actually be connected logically. No reason at all to not have this. And I'm talking reasons, not the "well infantry won't be able to get in!" whiny ***** excuse Wrel threw out. Given how its possible for infantry to now drop through a sky shield without being burned to death or take a gate shield diffuser-equiped vehicle right through multiple gates there is literally no reason why construction bases shouldn't be allowed to be made without man-sized gaps.

    Four, make silos that aren't attached to bases decay very quickly. As in 2 minutes. Today on Indar I went to build a quick-and-dirty router & flail base behind Quartz Ridge and every spot within the flails 500m range was filled with a cortium silo that had 2 to 10k in it and zero other construction. In other words the cortium farmers were - and some probably intentionally - griefing us because they kept useful bases from being built anywhere near the frontline. Nor is it faction or server specific - I've seen the exact same situation play out on every server & faction. People who actually want to build a functional base where it would do good being unable to because some ****stain farmer dropped their silo 100 meters away.
    • Up x 1
  14. LordKrelas

    Do you like being spawn-camped?
    Do you realize every position near a spawn in near every single Lattice-base is open-air?
    Do you know how many key locations in a lattice are open-air?
    Have you ever felt being shelled over a hill, or grenade-spam over a wall?

    None of these are enjoyable, let alone if the opponent can do it casually from nearly a hex away.
    Making PMBs even more obnoxious does not help PMBs be useful or helpful; It makes them more hellish one-sided spam encounters for the Lattice.

    Where do I so the spawn-camp with a long-range AOE shelling weapon?
    Where it will nail people without any issue of retaliation, risk, or problem, endlessly, sentencing them to a death by halving their health instantly - Unless the base was empty.
    Hence the reference to EMP Grenade spam; As that is exactly what it is, except further away, no nanites involved.

    Each single gun fires 5 Shield-shattering shells every 30 seconds.
    That is 10 artillery rounds fired from a remote-as-hell location, every minute, nailing possibly people in a far-away conflict, and erasing half their health.

    An Awful experience?
    It is far worse, if it became more spammy; Unless you meant for the Builder, who now gets to rain more ******** onto infantry.
    Where Construction quite literally is in their own world, and drops attacks on the Lattice, while hiding in remote holes.
    Like Gophers throwing sand at people's eyes - except a mile away from their victim.

    My idea, makes them central in position, Makes them have value to allies (as they boost them)
    Gives Allies & Builders a mutually benefiting experience, and doesn't make it a one-sided pissing affair for the Enemy.
    It is not enjoyable to be nailed by an OSC, nor is it to build them.
    It is not enjoyable to be hit by an Flail either; Nor to fight them, and it has no effect for allies, past Killing someone or the ally.
    Builders don't like getting hit by Glaives; Where it just shuts down the skyshield, their literal wall against aircraft.
    The Lattice doesn't have a skyshield to block shots, the Lattice can't even return fire.
    Being rained on by Artillery a mile away, is not enjoyable; Let alone when it's a point & click adventure for the shooter.

    It does not improve the experience, to double-down on ruining someone's day from as far away as possible, with no counter past not existing.
    I offered an EXP source, that puts bases on the front line, armored to survive & reinforcement encouragement by allies.
    And the result? "Oh It's better to just be Artillery, instead of Helping allies. I rather just be a big gun" as a response.
    What experience are you improving?
    Mine, gave PMBs a spot other than Glorified Cannons buried into the nearest hill.
    It made them valuable to Commanders, to allies; Not since they can kill people, but actually help the objective.

    You can kill several hundred people per hour, and never move the line, re-take a base, or even hold one.
    An PMB that is just a gun, is worthless; We right now can erase every single enemy in a Bio-lab or Lattice-base in 1 shot.
    Remove any Sunderer that dares exist nearby not huddled in the suicide holes.
    I'd take an MBT any day, over an PMB OSC, Flail, or Glaive of any kind;
    As the Tank moves, it actually can respond to the battlefield, it can kill: And it can hold a position that isn't itself.

    An PMB, that is a gun; it can only kill, and only defends itself - which is as far away as possible from anywhere the enemy or allies would go.
    It is in a location that is tactical meaningless.
    It's only capability is to kill; And a Tank does it better in the long run, not since they kill more either.
    As it doesn't matter how many enemies are killed by the big gun - given how many allies it murdered, and how its only motivation is for the fight to never move.

    An MBT can move with the fight.
    It has encouragement & reason, to let the fight move; And it can, as it won't be left behind.
    An stationary gun? Has the inverse, It wants it to stay forever. It only profits from death.

    Focusing further on this "Kill Focus" for PMBs, means they are tactical useless past nuking.
    And that is not a full environment - let alone where it puts the Artillery PMBs: Hellholes far from everything.
    PMBs that profit from long-range death, do not ever get close; Just enough to get the best farming spot.
    PMBs that focus on allies, actually go where allies are; Not where-ever the farm is best.


    Construction can not be the same as it is now, when it is built for Buffing allies.
    As right now, It is built around Routers, Self-Defense & Artillery.
    Routers mean You want it in the middle of no-where as far away as possible.
    Self-Defense means you don't care, but has to be far from hostiles.
    Artillery , means you want as glitchy as possible, and as far as possible - but just barely in range of the best farm.
    Artillery, the one you want
    - will still be the same with your idea, and focus solely on where they get Kills not Allies that need it.
    As we already have Artillery PMBs, thats why half the map seems to be nuked constantly by orbital beams from the sky.

    An Ally-Buffing PMB?
    Right up on the front-line of combat; This is typically in the open-field. Not a ravine.
    Rather than competing for Kills, by nuking entire sections of the map, It is aiming to boost Allies.
    The more allies, the better, both helping the team capture, defend & attack opponents, and the more profit the PMB makes.
    That is as far away from our Present PMBs, as Hives were from the front-line: An entire map of difference.

    PMBs when first released, were entirely about themselves.
    The HIVE cares about nothing, and will endlessly generate VP progress - the Builders only needed to care about the meters inside the walls, rather than even the Hex they are in.

    The PMBs after HIVEs lost their dominance, focused on Killing the enemy en-masse at range.
    From the same locations as the Old hives, if not barely closer.
    The position & situation of allies, again didn't matter at all; With only the Enemy's position mattering, for larger kills.

    My PMBs?
    Focused entirely on helping Infantry, Aircraft & Vehicles on your team.
    It wants to be near them, Not away from them, Nor edging on the enemy; It actually cares about allies.
    Its usage is centered around Allies; It isn't Killing enemies as a focus, it isn't dictating the map either.
    It supports the allied defense, allied assault, allied warfare.
    Never has an PMB been able to actually Influence a fight, beyond Happenstance spawn points - which are Rare.

    If PMBs won't change by an entire mentality switch, They certainly don't change by changing the usage case on an Artillery gun from PMB shielding, to Enemy Infantry.
    As they already were trying to nuke the Lattice, while ignoring all allies.
    Mine? They don't care about the enemy, they aren't there to kill them all day - Their allies are the focus.
    Ignorance? If I changed C-4 to a Ballistic-Shield, I'm pretty sure they'd be a noticeable change.
  15. karlooo


    I don't rly think teammates will value it because it's not the objective. You will help them, but they will fight for the objective and move on.
    So how I see it is that it will be a solo building experience again, which is rly not fun to defend.
    The construction players will have to experience this hell again, while the allies are unaware of the tiny improvements they are receiving and will ignore construction as always after the removal of HIVES.
  16. LordKrelas

    It would be helping them get the objective, and the builder is getting EXP for it.
    Solo building experience, is what is present; As you don't need anyone else, for OSC's, Flails or Glaives.

    HIVEs, were "squad cares only" for allies, and "Enemy has to attack this cease-pit, or every fight locks off passively"
    As why obsess over construction, when it's akin to following around a static MBT that demands repairs, but ignores everything.
  17. OneShadowWarrior

    Base building should have been integrated with current bases instead of away from main bases in worthless outposts.

    In other words, let the players help upgrade the bases they really want to keep and defend. All current construction bases ever did was pull needed numbers away from the main fights.
  18. karlooo

    The whole game would need a rework for that to happen.
  19. karlooo

    I assume this will be used to buff defenders which is good because the Router that attackers use is pretty unfair to deal with if you're defending and will maybe even the fight out.

    But construction gameplay will be the same solo suffering as always. Really in my opinion it would be better to remove construction temporarily (doesn't have to be for good) and refund it, until a big change comes to the game because it currently won't work out.

    It also has way too many problems in general. Like I don't want to play truck simulator for the rest of the game, I want to get involved in the fight and objective too.
    People use Cortuim for farming....very often the only way to get Cortuim is by driving all the way back to Warpgate because you will get absolutely nothing with all the base builders and farmers taking it all.

    But then again why did I even build the base if I have to leave it, just grab a router and never come back unless I need a new one?

    ______________________________________________________________


    Another possible rework to construction would be to turn it into an Arms factory, that will produce special vehicles....it can't be a tracked vehicle because of redeploy and they're too slow.
    It could be producing air vehicles, gunships maybe...what's that going to do? I don't know, I don't play air, and I don't like air unless it's being used for the Aerial Anomaly.

    But this factory idea will not work out because of redeploy and the infantry only objectives. I still believe construction should be removed temporarily and refunded.
  20. Trigga

    I think youll find that killing a shield mod and overloading a HIVE in the 10 seconds that a base builder is not aware has definitely deen 'fixed'. Or have you somehow found a way of building the HIVE since they removed it, and are stupid enough to build it for your enemy?

    We had an awesome base fight with another squad the other day against a french outfit.
    2 PMBs fighting against each other, orbitals, flail artillery, tanks, gal drops. It had the lot, each time the enemy tried something we responded with a counter, its how the game works. It was like a game of command and conquer with super weapons enabled.
    We eventually destroyed their base (using only flails and orbitals), so they made a new one, with a new orbital, in a new position, and the fight persisted until the continent locked.
    Their base was built on the road from NC Arsenal to Auraxicom Network Hub under the overhang, a good place to defend against vehicles.
    Our base was in the open terrain next to a rocky outcrop NE of Crux Headquarters.
    Im guessing these builders also think that vehicles are OP against bases as the only time we were able to effectively use tanks was to defend our base against their tanks and aircraft, which we had to do a lot, way more often than re-building due to their artillery or orbital, which ironically they rarely tried to use, inverse to us.

    IMO bases are fine, theyre not too squishy, infact compared to the rest of the game (and themselves when released), theyre nigh un-killable, especially if you actualy defend them, not just claim to do so.
    Nothing else can soak as much tank fire, can shield itself against aircraft so effectively, can return fire at decent distances without the input of a player, or rip apart any infantry unlucky enough to get near the AI turret with AI mod.

    Want to know the best part about PMBs?
    If your enemy destroys them you can build them again and have round 2.