Absurd Gameplay... Tanks Firing INTO Buildings

I see exactly zero problems with tanks being able to fire into buildings. If you are being hit by tank fire inside anything but the smallest buildings in the game, you need to move deeper inside and stay away from the doors.

If I had my way, tanks would be able to reduce these structures to rubble and you wouldn't even have the cover they currently provide.

And before anyone makes any asinine assumptions, I play infantry more often than armor, and none of my last 250 kills are with a tank.

One of the reasons why I nearly refuse to fight at Regent rock anymore. Had some potentially amazing infantry tower battles ruined there by tanks getting kills in places they really shouldn't be able to get shots on.

Tanks getting kills in places they really shouldn't be able to get? Why did you let them get into that position? Where was your opposing armor or Air?

Again, Armor is getting into positions that allows them to send LOS shots directly into buildings and support their infantry heading into the base, because you have LOST control of the areas around the outside of the base you are defending and they want to keep it that way. It is not the fault of the tank driver, it is your fault for failing and allowing them to get into that positions.

you only metioned meatgrindy biolabs (completely bad bases, mindnumbing and unrealistic as **** to boot) as something detrimental and your every other argument was about how people not pulling 20 tanks from the outside are doing it wrong. Isn't it totally wrong that the only feasible way to defend is to attack your own base from the outside?

How a bit more realistic game would result in better gameplay? Let's see, from the top of my head:
1. More distance between bases, like 1km not 300m => tanks maneuver and duke it out with other tanks in the open instead of parking near bases to pad kdr. Side effect is that they spend less time on retail sniping infantry. Currently there are maybe 3 places in the entire game where you can whiff such a thing for more than 20seconds. Yes, current AV mana turrets need to go and there would be fewer bases which is a good thing.

2. Small/medium bases being 200m x 200m minimum instead of ~50x50 => 10 tanks can't completely surround them in 3 seconds and suppress every little corner, defenders have somewhere to go from their own spawnroom. Bases elevated few meters to reduce shelling from the ground level by 90%. Number of adjactent hills aka parking lots needs to be reduced dramatically.

3. Potent stationary defences able to resist more than 2 tanks for more than 2 seconds would at least slow down the unstoppable mechanized zerg. Nope, cant have that. Static defenses are a sad joke and a death trap because attackers have a god given right to roll in for free with tanks and sunderers, shrug off turrets instagibbed 2 seconds later, deploy and start streaming people from 3 multiple directions at once. Braindead easy to pull off, a total ***** to contain.

You speak as if one side was all geniuses and the other complete drooling idiots. Unfortunately last time i checked even pub zergs with zero coherence have absolutely no problem bulldozing along the lattice lanes given enough raw power. Also lines on the map that decide where pitstops are don't sound too emergent to me but that's another story.

There is a huge disproportion between ease of attack and ease of defending and that's a fact. Attackers can have 3 different spawnpoints no problem, can alternate between routes of attack to try catching defenders off guard and defenders are not only always reactive, they also usually come from a single predictable, easily campable spot and to get anywhere they need to run through the open field under heavy fire.

Tell me how exactly do you stop zerg riding force multipliers in let's say Ceres Hydroponics? 5 buildings total, exposed cap point, clear LoS from the hill, nearest hi-tech terminals far away and it's only a 4 minute timer.

Seriously, the old Crown was better with all its hardcoreness than this streamlined-for-attackers lopsided ********.

Here's an idea, spawn at the nearest base that will allow mbt spawn, come around and blow up the already distracted armor! Oh wait, most of the pea sized brain planetsiders can't think that far ahead.

They're not geniuses, but the game asked them "Do you want to be predator (vehicle) or prey (infantry)?" and they were at least smart enough to choose the better answer (which is more than can be said of their opponents.)

The same is true regarding your comment about zerging, which is basically "Do you want to try to face 25+ enemies alone, or do you want to use teamwork instead?" Again, smart players are going to choose the obvious answer, while bad players are going to be rolled and complain about it. Given even continent pop, if you lose to a zerg it's your own fault for choosing the wrong battle (and possibly your empire's fault for collectively choosing bad battles, although in some cases it's simply a 2v1 and there isn't a winning move possible.) Joining a continent where pop is even is, of course, another obvious choice.

As for spawn options, if you're implying the defenders (who have the single hard spawn of the battle) have the weaker spawn options that's just ridiculous. The attackers only have access to flimsy soft spawns (sunderers) and when those die the battle ends and the defenders win. Which is why as a defender I will basically dedicate myself to hunting and killing Sunderers because it's the single most important event in a base battle (plus it's great XP, but mostly I just like winning.)

I mean, it sounds like you're implying the disproportion between ease of attacking vs. defending favors the attackers in planetside. I'm not sure you understand how ridiculous this makes you sound, given how many skilled players specifically look for defenses because they're such an easy win at most bases in PS2. (Largely due to the hard vs. soft spawn issue, where the hard spawn is usually close enough to the capture points that defenders don't even worry about soft spawns.)

*facepalm*

the BASE design is flawed. we were defending a cap point, tanks were SHOOTING into the cap point corridors (speaking loudly so he'll perhaps understand... does that work with these people?)

Are you sure you're remembering PS1 correctly? Tanks had almost no impact on indoor fights. Tanks could shell the front doors of bases, and that was pretty much it. Everything else about a base capture occurred inside, underground, where no vehicles could participate.

Sounds to me you were heavily outnumbered and running a sweet last stand. Don't be salty that, in a combined arms game, you died to a tank that was assisting their infantry allies in helping cap that point.

You claim they were not in the fight at all, but they got you off the point didn't they?

The problem is no doors. Not tanks.

So what, if you're the defenders in that position is that somehow poor base layout, or perhaps you've just, you know, lost the fight.

Yeah, tanks being able to hit you almost anywhere inside a building is a bit dumb. That is something they really need to fix.

If you want realism then you shouldn't be playing a space game with people flying around with jetpacks and huge suits with massive guns built into them.

Yup, them crutches those tanks are. Why don't we just get rid of tanks, because obviously only unskilled players use them, am I right?

*sigh*

Your DEFENSE was flawed. You were cowering inside a confined space whilst tanks were SHOOTING explosive munitions in there. (Speaking loudly so he'll perhaps understand me over the explosions... does that work with, wup, no hes dead again.)

See what I don't understand is you're arguing for every base on the map to be Crown 1.0 where the defenders get enormous advantages.

See, people in these forums constantly argue for the ability for defenders to, with less people, defend against oncoming zergs. That makes for terrible gameplay because sure, you get to feel badass while you defend against this massive oncoming zerg and get tons of score and are just pleased with yourself...

but it doesn't take into account that eventually, it won't be a zerg vs a small amount of defenders.. it'll be an even fight, say 48+ 50% each side, and you're still fighting in a base with massive defender advantage... guess who wins? The defenders... then the attackers route and go elsewhere sick of smashing their heads on a wall, and guess who is now zerging down the lane the other way? You guys. Only to hit another even fight a few bases down the line... etc etc.

This is why you cannot balance a base with a significant defenders advantage for ever base. Sure, you can have the odd one, like Bio Labs or a decently well defended Amp or crazy The Ascent on Amerish or whatnot but you get my drift...

It sounds fun on paper to have bases that are properly covered against massive zergs and armor spam, but in reality, when the battle is even, the defenders should always be under threat of loss and making every base Crown 1.0 would be terrible.

Not that a few bases can't do with some tweaking here and there, but does this at least make sense, Vaphell?

I 100% disagree with your post, butr I wanted ot add that your signature is hilarious for so many reasons. "Because they don't nerf us..." XD omg so true.

Cool, now why have infantry at all? This game becomes an arcady PoS where the pinnacle of 'strategic play' is chain pulling of force multipliers, piling as many of them as possible in single spot and farming.
They don't have to be smart enough, just have a base with a tank terminal while the next base doesn't. You are pretty much saying that defending let's say Quartz from zerg attacking north from Hvar doesn't make any sense and the base should be abandoned. Hvar has tanks and high ground advantage, Quartz is a ****hole with nothing so not only you need to pull tanks from indar ex but also fight uphill against better positioned mech and AV mana turrets?

in other words you are saying that 2 opposite zergs pushing along the adjacent lattice rails at 2:1 advantage is normal and desired? So why the devs spent months on the lattice, if the kosher strategy is to avoid deathblobs just like in the hex times? The fact the bases are not in any way equalizers of lopsided body counts only proves my point they are indefensible POS not conductive to tight gameplay.

Yup, these hard spawns in Ceres Hydroponics or Rusty Mesa sure feel advantageous when compared to crappy sunderers... not. Nobody who was ever locked in there can say it with a straight face.

Having backup sunderers is an option, guarding them is also an option. 3 spawns against 1 pretty much means surround for free and surround is a huge advantage. You know defenders are coming from one place (easier job to contain them) but defenders stepping outside are shot at from full 360 and that's even before mlg ready br100 tankers show up to pad their stats. If these sunderers stream enough people, defenders trying to swim upstream simply can't make it. The fact that in most 3 point bases you can park sunderers right on top of <B> and <C> and force win by default doesn't help either.

Ridiculous? I don't think so.
What about the fact that in 3-point bases 2 out of 3 cap points are on attackers' turf with ability to park sundies there and that even some if not most 1-point bases tuck defenders in an easily contained corner?
In most bases you need to go to the other side of the base through the sea of hostile bodies to reach these soft spawns and god forbid there are darts everywhere and somebody actually guards them.
What about the fact that defenders are not safe even at the top floors of big spawns because there is dozen places where snipers and tanks can go to own them? Why even waste polygons on complicated 3 story spawns if they offer 0 high ground advantage and are farmed to hell?

Even if the base has mech terminals you can't really spawn anything because you get pushed in front of the firing squad of camping tanks. Yup, one of the most important assets you have in theory is useful like that.
Also let's not forget about the new spawn mechanics of squad sundies and gals where you can poop troops right on target circumventing spatial control entirely.

Another dichotomy, as if there was nothing between ****holes we have and the crown 1.0.

Maybe you missed something because i was clearly criticizing blatantly disadvantageous base locations and their non-existent defensive layers. That's an entirely different story than promoting crown 1.0 everywhere. How about the level playing field for a change? If the crown 1.0 was unfair because you had to climb a ridiculously unpleasant hill with the whole deck stacked against you, how fair is it to have the same in the opposite direction, that is to defend when contained in a small campable corner and facing the hill yourself and not just in 1 direction but 3?
Saerro Listening Post rings any bells? 180 degrees of elevation dwarfing the tower itself, you get spammed to hell from C while trying to mount push at B when attackers spawn there, right next to the point. W-T-actual-F.

What about the novel idea of mostly flat surface where the base is located without all these convenient parking lots for camper tankers, snipers and mana turrets? Isn't that ease of spamming the reason we got Esamir ruined by omnipresent walls? Can we get that level playing field or maybe it's not possible because that concept would be too radical and these hills are just too pretty? And if these hills are there to stay, can we get some kind of protective plates in most obvious directions to cut the blatant spam directed right at the spawnroom doors?

Or what about Freyr? Whack-a-mole with hard spawns for attackers? whose brilliant idea was that?

No it doesn't/[citation needed]. Somehow people went to bang their heads against the steep slopes of the crown for months and they didn't appear to mind it much, apparently they thought that place offered the best experience of the whole PS2, Omaha Beach 2.0 or whatever, not found anywhere else.
Either way where is the problem exactly? Imo it would work the other way around too, so one time you are pleased with yourself, the other time someone else is and everybody is happy. Right now the only bulletproof way to be constantly pleased with yourself is to join massive blob for easy mode and roflstomp bases with at least 3:2 advantage. Doesn't sound like much improvement to me.
We never had a remotely defensive map so it's not like we can say with certainty it would be bad gameplay.

You must be forgot towers, where cap point and spawn gets cut off by tank spam in door? Or AMP station that had cap point on roof, by trying to reach it you face hungry Reavers with lolpods? Biolab with generator on roof?