So I've built 12 or so different bases since Fortification went live, iterating on the design, and I feel this is a solid result which has performed well, even under significant attack. A force of 2 or 3 defenders can hold off twice their number, including half that in armor/air, as long as they keep the modules going and actively counter the assault. This was tested real-world several times and performed well. I'll be uploading a longer video showing the core build process in real-time, which includes using a few tricks for achieving proper and reproducible wall alignment, which I detailed in an earlier video. I'll also be continuing this series with videos showing the various ways you can build out the internal space, and then a few options for the external, non-core layers. The example here for things like the air unit and vehicle spaces will not work in more confined areas and are also more vulnerable in this case that would be advisable in all cases. Please do post any feedback or suggestions!
This is a very strong and powerful base. I have never seen anything like this before. This is definitely a revolution in construction.
Yeah its a nice looking PMB but it has the same problem every PMB has after the nerf that unless you are actively sitting in your base waiting on someone to attack it, preferably with a few teammates, there is literally nothing stopping me from just driving in with a Javelin and shooting the Silo to death in ~60 seconds. If I have to babysit my base no matter how well designed it is or how many clever tricks are being used there is little point in making them aside for pulling vehicles from and if that is the case then I might as well not spend a lot of time designing bases.
In fact, what is the use of this base if the bases were not like straw? These bases would be useful if there was no need to constantly spam the fortress shield. Only with a fortress shield can these bases serve as small arenas for battle, if they were not often ignored by the defenders. And the constant use of the Fortress Shield removes the benefit of having walls with windows, because you can’t shoot through the Fortress Shield, and if you don’t use it, the base will die. In its current state, due to the need to constantly have an active fortress shield, this type of base turns stupidly into a vehicle spam point, nothing more. Or, for example, such a base, in this case, the Fortress Shield does not close the walls from which infantry can potentially shoot, the problem is poor survivability, which is clearly visible in the 96/96 war zones. Under these conditions, the heavy repair module will not help, and dependence on the Fortress Shield is a poor implementation. The fortress shield should protect against attacks by Flail, Bastion or A2G, and not be the only thing that does not give the base the opportunity to exist. Moreover, do not forget about the presence of Flail in the game, which simply destroy everything that is not protected by the Skywall shield.
Boom, boom... Wait, he activated the SPHERE... a minute passed and you were distracted.. Boom, boom... and so on ad infinitum.
It's funny when they are indignant that the builder always makes the base with a minimum of inputs. What they want? For us to make five different entrances, put up HERE arrows, and roll out the red carpet?
as cool as all of you guys photos are, im sure they arent as useful in many spots, they totally screwed up the construction placement, you can only do this kind of sand castle on flat land, and most of these flat land pics you guys are showing are in areas that wont do much help for your team, the best way to make use of construction as messed up as it is with its placement is to stick your base right outside the no deployment zone of a actual base, no one will be defending those bases that are out in the open and far away from dev bases
I think the idea that a PMB should NOT require babysitting is flawed. Non PMB bases will be lost if not babysat/actively defended, a Router or Sunderer spawn will as well, same for any asset of value or impact. A PMB is no different. If anything, it is a more significant an asset than some of these, depending on it's location and capability. A lot of the criticism of the Construction system seems to be from a perspective that have confused it for base-building in an MMO or a Survival game and the issue of offline raiding. This is not such a game. For an Alert map, the maximum possible lifespan of a base is 90 minutes plus the time it took to build the base/start the alert. Sure, you can build a low profile base with a spawn tube and vehicle terminal and it will survive without defense, but this is not that. As for destroying the silo in 60 seconds with a Javelin, if the base is built properly, and/or if the owner responds to the warning messages, that is not happening. I've built many bases where I got the warning, redeployed, got back in time to save it not from one guy on a Javelin but multiple tanks... I really think there is a huge amount of user error and wrong thinking about bases across the board. I agree the effective requirement of using the Fortress Shield is a negative, but I am saying that it is effective, not that it is good game design. The goal was to evaluate the utility of bases and their survivability, especially when built closer to the frontline, taking advantage of the new no-deploy ranges. In this context, some of your reasonable points lose some weight. For example, the use of the Fortress Shield negating the benefit and utility of walls with windows, that if you don't use the field, the base will die. In my example, in my view, how it is meant to be used, the Shield is designed to ensure the base core (Safe Player Spawn, Equipment Terminal and Silo - as well as the two Spires) is as invulnerable as possible, it is not meant to apply to the entire base. Windows in walls in the presented design only exist outside the shield's sphere. For other designs, the problem of it preventing weapons fire out of the windows would only apply within that sphere, and only when there are players present to be thusly limited. If there are so many players present that the limitation is significant, the shield is not as required. Again, as base should not be invulnerable when undefended. If defended, if all of the available tools are used, it should be and is more survivable. Regarding the walls with windows, a greater problem in my opinion is that now enemy can shoot through those windows, both infantry and armor, and there is nothing you can do to prevent it, where previously you could with a module. In respect to the usefulness of a such a base - it can and should be more than a vehicle spawn point, but even if that's all it is, it is still valuable and can have an important impact. The Flail issue can be addressed to some degree by active defense, I have video of this as well which if needed I can post.
The fact is that the power multiplier was almost removed in the PMB. It takes almost as many players to defend a base as it does to attackers. The basic point of a base is screwed up in the name of building haters who think that every base they attack should fall, and if not, then it's the wrong constructions system, which should be nerfed. I dont know why devs think they can rise the interest to constructions by constant nerfing it for all recent years. This is beyond any logic. Before they started nerfing it, building a good base and defending it from a big attack wasn't easy, it was good luck and good fight. I wouldn't be surprised if they just remove it entirely in the future because they seem to be confused.
The complaint is not that the PMB needs to be defended, they always needed to be defended even with AI turrets and pain spires. The complaint is that they need babysitting, meaning it cant survive at all without you and even if you hear it scream its half dead when you get there. AI turrets and pain spires were useful to give the bases a little time without you being there and then when you got there to defend, it was not only you as a player that was defending, you could use the turrets and pain spires to your advantage.. as it should be in a base. The time you spend preparing, setting things up and mining should translate into a advantage later on, why else would you do it? Its kinda like stuff like AV/AI mines, if they just shot out confetti when triggered by enemies who would bother with them? the point is that you spend the time and cost of placing them in advance to then later profit from it which is also why they are so powerful, AI mines 1 hit kill infantry unless they have Flak or HA shield active but its 'fine' because that is the payout someone got for the preparation of putting them there. If building a base dont give you an advantage when fighting there then what is the point? Pulling vehicles, but you do not need a fancy looking base to do that just a Silo and CC is enough and the CC alone provides more or less the same 'advantage' as a base with a bunch of walls. Cover for both defender and attacker so basically just a spawn for the defenders. There is also the whole point of AI turrets for aircraft and vehicles being there so the solo defender of the base has some chance against vehicles as without them you need to live in the turrets to gain anything from them but then you are not doing anything else, defeating the purpose of having the turrets in the first place.
Unfortunately, the AI turrets will not work properly if you build a compact base based on the Command Center, because the enemy will easily hide in the building and as a result the building will take damage. Because it happened before, some stopped the traffic behind the wall and the wall received permanent damage. I think now the Construction System just needs to return the invulnerability of structures in the presence of a repair module, or some other module, or while there is Silo (if you install the worm module in Silo, all structures become vulnerable).
I hate to say it, but there's a lot of contradictory stuff here. Complaining that a base can't survive at all without you but saying you don't need a "fancy looking" base, that a base without walls provides the same advantage of a base with walls, is just a bit absurd. A base without walls is why it would be half-dead before you get there, and it will provide no advantage. It's not how fancy a base looks, but how defensible it is, which makes the difference. I don't think a base should be able to survive without you entirely, again, a non-PMB base cannot, a sunderer cannot, nothing can - why should a PMB be any different? I definitely agree that the removal of AI turrets and Pain Spires makes the job of defending it harder, and I have no idea why they were removed, but as you admit, active defense was always needed. The issue, if I understand you correctly, is that the time commitment for defense is much higher, when defending becomes baby-sitting. As with actual baby-sitting, if you do it properly, the level of hands-on activity has a range - some will require more than others. I'm not sure people fully appreciate that, and are just throwing up their hands without fully exploring the theorycrafting space and using best practices. Surely it cannot be controversial or questionable to suggest some bases are easy to defend than others? As for advantage, a good, proper base gives a significant advantage, this has been demonstrated many times but perhaps it will take footage of one doing so to make that point. I think there are a handful of ways to address these issues which would allow AI turrets to be re-added, and they could modify the current module system in such a way as you suggest to change the mechanic so that instead of a transition from undamaged to damaged, it would be from invulnerable to vulnerable. It could be the case that any asset without a module slot would be vulnerable, and any asset with a slot would only be vulnerable if a worm module were slotted in said asset. Make attacking more active and require more effort, and consequently make defense require less effort. I like the idea.
Those who build bases are content creators. Zergfits are content consumers, like a swarm of locusts eating everything in its path. Who do you think the devs should cater to?
Both of course. That swarm of locusts as you call it very often is enabled by the base, be it the vehicle terminals, the protection, the re-arming capabilities, the spawn or the in-station spawns through the router. I've seen entire zergs of players and a large fight die due to lack of spawns, a well-placed base sometimes keeps that going. It's not an either/or proposition, and the devs only need to make minor adjustments to the current Construction assets, it is not a question of catering to a specific group.in my opinion.
