[Suggestion] A way to make roadblock PMBs matter

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by RabidIBM, Aug 31, 2020.

  1. RabidIBM

    In the current build of the game I strongly advise against making a roadblock PMBs, because players will simply go around you or over you, defending players will defend the static base behind your roadblock, and the tankers will be the kids who kick over your sandcastle. The problem is that there is no reason for anyone other than the couple players personally invested in a roadblock PMB to bother to defend it.

    I suggest solving this by adding dead control points to the play area between many of the existing bases. It would be easiest to find locations for these on Indar, which used to have many more bases, and still even has active garages around the place with no associated spawn points.
    If not built on, the dead points aren't part of the lattice system, players can drive on past them as they currently do. If a silo is built within 100m (the existing power range of a silo) of the dead control point, it activates. It then becomes part of the lattice system. Enemies cannot pass by and capture the base behind you without dealing with you. I would have two ways to deal with these:
    Option 1: Capture the base the old fashioned way, by beating the capture timer. Once the capture timer completes for the attackers, the base detonates (much like currently happens on the flat top of Ikanam bio lab) and the control point shuts down, removing it from the lattice. The attackers are free to carry on.
    Option 2: Destroy the silo. Doing so removes the base from the lattice and attackers are free to carry on. They can stick around to fully kick over every tower in the sand castle if they want to, but there is no requirement.

    To activate these, full connection to the base should be required, so building them behind enemy lines wouldn't achieve anything. If you start building while back capped, you have to re secure the back cap for your base to activate the control point. I also wouldn't have the silo activate them until it is fully deployed. This way, even if the builders immediately replace their dead silo, the attacker still get about a minute to start the capture on the next base.

    I'm trying to think of suggestions that would add variety to the game, and keep things balanced. I'm trying not to be one of those players who only plays scissors and wants bigger scissors. If you've read very many of my posts you know I play construction, but I think this addition to construction wouldn't be anything unfair to anyone else.
  2. Liewec123

    a long time ago, walls and building were invincible while they had an active repair module effecting them,
    it made for some amazing fights on the bridges of indar :D
    and really gave construction a more fun and engaging purpose than continent locking
    (back then we had "Hives" which locked the continent)

    but unfortunately, when they removed the hives they also nerfed the walls/buildings.

    so roadblock PMBs won't work anymore,
    there is no mission for people to push inside and kill repair modules,
    all of the tanks can simply just nuke the walls down.
  3. Campagne

    No thanks. Being forced to deal with them isn't fun, especially when they're designed to be so unfavourable for attackers and unaffiliated defenders.

    OP turrets that fire themselves, painspires, super tanky walls with one-way shields, it's all just awful. If they were fun players wouldn't do everything other than fire at them.
  4. RabidIBM

    @Liewec Yeah I remember those times. I built a few hive bases myself. The trouble with invincible walls was that there were places they could be built where it was actually impossible to get to the repair module. It was possible to make bases that were actually impossible to attack, which when combined with hives created a clock on the continent that couldn't be countered. I agree that currently roadblock bases are unplayable, but I don't think bringing back invincible buildings is the answer. Thanks for the input though, it is nice when my posts stay up for more than a day. By comparison it is annoying that those "MRUGH! I hate this game, I quit!" posts stay on the front page for months.

    @Campagne If you think the turrets in bases are OP, I hate to say it, but you must not have much experience using them. They're damage is very weak, and their auto lock range is short. Pain spire do very slow damage, so all they really achieve is to create a "no lingering" zone. They also light enemies up so defenders notice them more easily. Even with these automated defenses, bases can be taken out by a single player if not defended, which is why I smash that redeploy key as soon as the alarm module pings. The shields only stop direct hits, splash damage still goes through, meaning my defensive pillboxes quickly become uninhabitable from only a couple HE tanks shooting at them. The walls are tanky enough that no one tank takes them down, but even 3 tanks will do it if you focus fire. I find much of the time when players complain that something is OP, it's usually something they don't personally use. I would challenge you to play construction yourself and demonstrate how it is OP when you are using it.
  5. vonRichtschuetz

    Main problem for roadblock bases currently are outfit OS. As soon as a decent amount of enemies accumulates to make an interesting fight, usually enough of them have access to OS and with just two nukes (one for the skyshield, second for the base itself) the base is gone. It's sad that some zergfit officer can just right click on the map and has the perfect counter to an entire playstyle that neither requires effort nor skill.

    My solution would be: Outfit orbitals should only be useable within no-deploy zones.

    AI controlled turrets and pain spires have extremely low range and can easily be taken out by tanks; none of them are an actual threat and can most of the time be avoided just by spatial awareness. For walls you just need a bit more tanks. We've had amazing long drawn out fights at PMBs and especially for the longer fights people were actually thanking us for the amazing fight. It was one of the few types of combat where combined arms was actually possible. Tanks to damage the buildings, infantry to keep defenders from repairing. It was never difficult to kill PMBs and only a tiny amount of teamwork was required.
  6. Campagne

    The AI turrets have a damage model of 200@10m to 167@85m with a rate of fire of 545RPM. They have a faster TTK against infantry than almost any other automatic weapon in the game. Their damage isn't weak, it's almost always higher than what the infantry themselves are able to carry. The turrets with an AI module is weak, but given it gets kills on its own a like a super-powered spitfire I'd argue it's still too strong anyway when their decent accuracy (compared to the average player accuracy). But if your suggestion was implemented the turrets would never have any shortage of gunners anyway.

    The painspires causing damage over time shortens the TTK on anyone under their effect. Put one near a chokepoint and every enemy around is going to take a few less shots to kill, which makes attacking much more difficult.

    If no one bothers to show up for the several minutes it would take sure, but with your suggestion there would always be defenders.

    The shields are mostly for infantry combat, though I'm honestly skeptical about them not blocking splash, that seems like a bug if anything. Regardless, standing back a distance doesn't stop the defenders from shooting out.

    I would challenge you to find an enjoyable way to utilize construction in common gameplay rather than trying to shove it down everyone's throat by force. Construction isn't fun for the vast majority of players, hence why no one wants to deal with it.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the AI-controlled turrets return fire from a greater distance than they will target normally, akin to spitfires? Anyways as above the turrets are very real threats when a player is using them.

    Regardless, this is not really appropriate to my point. PMBs aren't fun. If you enjoyed that one time great, I probably wouldn't have and most other people probably wouldn't have. I don't want to be forced to play in a way I don't like, and if I have to play as a tank even if I don't feel like it to actually do anything to the mandatory base I'm not going to be having fun.

    Secondly, no teamwork is required at all, but a number of supporting allies are. In fights with unequal populations the fun is going to crumble away very quickly, whether there aren't enough engineers to repair the walls and all the defenders die to a mass of tanks or there aren't enough tanks and the best case scenario is everyone gets bored of staring at the walls and doing little else.

    If the bases are out in the middle of nowhere and players are having a good time, perfect. But the majority of players don't like that, and most players aren't going to like being forced to play with them.
  7. RabidIBM

    @Campagne You challenge me to find a way to make PMBs fun in the current meta? I'm up to Episode 10 of my "Rabid Construction" guides MFer! And just for you, I will put out episode 11 tomorrow, which will be on counter basing! I had wanted to get a couple more screen caps first, but I think I can do it with what I have. I'd do it now, but I'm drunk so the quality would be terrible, but this is happening tomorrow. I will show you, pictures included, how to blow PMBs apart from the perspective of a builder after having written up 10 episodes on how to be a builder in the current meta. Does that meet your challenge? Will you now meet mine?
  8. Campagne

    Those are ways to utilize the current construction system, not ways to make it more fun or enjoyable for the general playerbase.

    The "challenge" was more of a play off your statement, which I thought deserving of mockery. The bottom line was and is that construction isn't fun for most players, and that trying to force it on people isn't a good idea.
  9. RabidIBM

    @Campagne oh no buddy, you don't get to back peddle that easily! You called it OP! That's not my opinion, that's your own words, which there is a record of above. I called the same BS on you that I call on most people who call things OP, that you only think it's OP because you don't use it. You're that guy who plays scissors and thinks rocks are OP. The thing you think is OP isn't OP, you're just bad. Want to prove me wrong? Show me it being OP when you are using it. I'm rising to your challenge, and my challenge to you still stands. The gloves are dropped, and episode 11 of Rabid Construction comes out tomorrow in your honour!...once I recover from tonight's bad choices.

    As for your point that "I'm NoT mAkInG iT fUn FoR oThEr PeOpLe" then why is it that I can sometimes get 48-96 on both sides to show up to my bases? Granted, that's not common, I often misjudge where the front will be, but I don't have many options, which was the original point of this post! But hell yeah when the alert comes down to ownership of 1 minute bases and I built on one, glorious things have happened!
  10. Campagne

    Well really, do I honestly have to point out that a repairable tanky armoured mounted machinegun turret with one of the most powerful damage models of any automatic weapon in the game is perhaps a bit overpowered? By some grace of Papa Vanu they're at least immobile and can't be built just anywhere at any time, otherwise we'd see them all over the place. And then combine that with a few others, walls, repair modules, placeable pain fields, one-way shields, and AI modules for any turrets without gunners or to maintain fire while the user is repairing them, and yeah, bases are kinda overpowered. And that's not even thinking about the other crap they offer. Not fun.

    I think the thingys are OP because of their powerful stats and affects on gameplay and player movement. You have not yet shown new ways for construction to be enjoyable. For clarity I suppose, this would largely be new suggestions to changing the current system, because as of the current state, it's not fun.

    Drugs (and alcohols) are bad, m'kay? Drink lots of water kthxby

    Anecdotal, no certain cause. Players tend to gather where other players are, for example. If there were no enemies nearby a PMB full of them is still usually better than ghostcapping.

    Alerts are not won because of a single base at the very end of an alert. There are multiple fronts with multiple factions.
    • Up x 1
  11. Johannes Kaiser

    Doesn't matter if the base is attacked by 2 Harrasser and 1 MBT and just utterly deleted off the map in roundabout three minutes.
  12. Campagne

    Well maybe if it's a tiny base with no defenders. The OP seeks to make PMBs the centre of the action.
    • Up x 1
  13. LordKrelas

    I rather not have to fight a literal Solid wall, and PvE Elements, that got dropped by a random squad 3 hours ago', who are fighting in a Lattice-base, while their opponents get barely any EXP & have to deal with self-repairing everything controlled by AI, with Pain-fields as well.

    Are we fighting Players, or literally fighting the Terrain?
    Let alone for barely any actual reward, for having to attack walls.
    Did people not remember the slog of constantly attacking HIVEs? It was fun for the Builders, not the attackers.
    On select Servers, if you weren't Base-Popping the entire continent got locked damn fast, so your gameplay was PvE, for less EXP than the HIVE Builders.

    The number of mechanics in Bases, that exist to drive off Players from wanting to attack it, are steep.
    The number of mechanics that benefit Builders that force players into grinder-pits is also steep.
    Not all of us play the game, to walk into an NPC-Controlled Grinder-Pit that is optimized as much as possible to remove any enjoyment in attacking.
    • Up x 1
  14. Johannes Kaiser

    It is absolutely not relevant how big it is. The attackers just have to show up while the thing isn't completed yet and it's down the toilet.
    • Up x 1
  15. Demigan

    There are several bases that already offer this, even though they are mandatory. But few people ever build a base there, so why waste time trying to make something only a small group of people like to do?

    Instead why dont we try to fix all the painpoints of the construction system:
    - it takes too long to build, the payoff for all that time would require the base to be almost invulnerable which isnt fun either. Make PMB's quicker and easier to build, and easier to discard as well.
    - Reduce the spawntime at PMB's. Currently spawntubes take longer before you can spawn there, which discourages players aside from the owner to spawn there.
    - less automation, more player-operated construction. PMB's were never supposed to be automated murder-holes, but defended and attacked by dozens if not hundreds of players. If PMB's have more construction that players can and want to use they will come. Examples: PMB's could create a deployable infantry-terminal, deployable powerful shield generators, provide an artillery platform that fires support equipment anywhere on the continent for a small nanite cost like a radar that spots all enemies and vehicles in its large radius for 10 seconds, a 1-minute stealth field generator, 2 connected teleporter tubes etc.
    - Change the buildings of construction to invite players to fight there. Imagine if you can build a basic building, but all walls within X meters from that building's sides that do not have a door become invulnerable. Players are rewarded this way for creating holes in their defenses that infantry or vehicles can fight through, while still defending their territory. These buildings can do a lot of chores in the base. Such as a teleporter building similar to those towards Biolabs that allows players to teleport to other PMB's or buildings that generate the special items like the deployable shields. You can make these buildings the resource sinks, while the current base parts can be quick and cheap to build.
    - make turrets 2 entities: the base and the turret. The turret can be destroyed but will respawn, the base of the turret is what needs to be destroyed if you want to shut it down permanently.

    Whatever happens, PMB's need to have a supportive function that everyone wants, not just the owner. And the PMB's need to be accessible by the players. Such as easy spawn options and being quick and easy to build.
    • Up x 3
  16. Johannes Kaiser

    If you want to invite others to help with building, I recommend that the owner can place placeholders, planning the base out like a blueprint. And then when pulling anything from the silo there are three lock-options: 1) Free building locked to owner only, 2) Free building locked to owner and squad/platoon, 3) Free building for everyone. The excluded parties can only pull buildings that are in the blueprint but not yet built, and can only place them in the planned-out locations.
    Seen too many bases ruined by well-meaning randoms who completely annihilated the planned layout with their buildings. And mind that I'm only talking of people who actually want to help but don't know the plan. There are also people who don't care and place their stuff willy nilly, and people who like to disrupt. Granted, there are some people who study bases built by others and only add things that fit in afterwards, but those are rare.
    But with this function you can start small and go big later, like in the beginning plan only with the buildings for 1-2 players, then grow outwards if more show up.
    • Up x 2
  17. Campagne

    The bigger it is the longer it takes to destroy.

    If the attackers are busy fighting inanimate objects they're not fighting the defenders. Bases being destroyed while in progress is an issue of population, nothing more.

    If there was a force capable of defence the walls wouldn't be a high-priority target.