[Suggestion] Add shields to buildings

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Cyridius, Dec 27, 2012.


    Did anyone bring actual facts to the table? noone posted videos, or hard numbers proving anything, or anything like that. we were talking about how to best deal with armored columns and spawn camping. we had a disagreement about the best course of action and began debating how to do it and whether it was plausible or not. Yes I call that a debate.

    Bias meaning having the same perspective if not arguable more? Sorry, but please explain how you came to the conclusion that little is biased again?

    How do you know hes a lib gunner....and nothing else...................?
  2. L1ttlebear

    he he winfield :p Let me post back in the same fashion as you post...AHEM!

    "i like how think that you understand 'vehicles' as if 'vehicles' can summed up in one category

    i guess its hard for cod infiltrators to let go"

    was i close? i think i did a very good impression :)
  3. Dasbag

    For ***** sake stop using those quotes, it makes it harder to post.

    You are thinking in hypotheticals here.

    You are trying to turn this into a semantic argument.
    You are assuming I am suggesting making the game pure bio dome based combat, using COD as a comparison is poor also. You are suggesting that downgrading armors usefulness somehow turns this into a game of COD which is extremely foolish. Where is the incentive to defend? when most bases have little fortification to them why stay around? these points serve no point, once again you are saying to fall back but the point of a base is to fortify and hold not an open area that you walk around for a few minutes until an armor column comes then run away.
    Since you are completely taking everything I say to an opposite extreme this seems to be necessary.
    I said people avoid the crown because they don't want to get stuck in a perpetual bombard fest which is boring as hell, it sucks away faction population that could be used for enriching the experience of other battles. Tank users love it, everyone else doesn't.
    You are playing the "I have been playing you the whole time" card. You are coming off as pretty arrogant right now.

    I'm tired of posting now, keep your eyes forward and say everything is ok, fight to defend flawed game mechanics. You cant see any other point of view because of your bias towards vehicle gameplay. The arguments would be allot easier if you didn't take something said and push it to the complete opposite extreme paradigm, until you stop doing that this is pointless.

    You seem to think there is a such thing as victory with these arguments, you also think you are some evil mastermind manipulating petty users into increasing your post count. You are wrong on both of these.
    • Up x 1
  4. Dasbag

    Thats funny because I see allot of posts here that are actually quite the opposite.

    Stop trying to be a white knight.
  5. Guyshep

    Most of the posts(especially the reply inside a quote type posts) here are collectively a hideous, violent assault on the English language and my eyes.

    Anyways, combined arms doesn't mean "Rock, Rock, Scissors". Right now man-made structures are designed as if to favor the attackers, or defend by attacking. Windows are used only to attack those inside, walking outside the spawn room can get you shot down by aircraft and tank shells of all things, and infantry overall lack the cover needed to be effective beyond being towel boys for vehicles. If this game remains in its current Air>Ground>Infantry state, then a majority of the metagame will just turn into constant forgone conclusions, numbers games, and who has the most resources.
    • Up x 2

    :D sorry. its way easier for me :)

    Well....yea.... we are not talking of historical accounts (except for when i do, and noone believes a word). I described what the game is designed for. thats hypothetical situations and actions, so thats kind of the point of the discussion. you know, to discuss what would happen if x met y and z decided to run kind of thing. whats the problem?

    Well no, first off im not trying to do that, and secondly i dont think that i am inadvertently doing it either. This whole thread is basically about how much influence tanks should have on base capture. you said that they could do everything (which would be what this thread has a problem with) and I pointed out that they have no involvement with the actual changing ownership of territories, only that they influence battles. If you feel that im splitting hairs then im sorry, but I think thats a very important aspect of this game, and more importantly, of this discussion.

    Ok you described a situation (being the bio-dome layout) in which vehicles had NO influence what-so-ever. you then proceeded to call that lay out "hitting the nail on the head" and the rest (all non-biodome bases) a "missing their mark". im sorry if I assumed incorrectly, but making the accusation that you want all bases to be immune from vehicle influence is REALLY easy given what you said about the bio-domes. No im not splitting hairs here, thats just how i read that.

    Please dont throw me in the group of people that calls anything they dislike COD. im not like that. given my thoughts on the paragraph above, My reference to COD (an inf only game with minor vehicle influence now and again) was apt and accurate. i wanst trying to throw that card around in any way but constructive, in its correlation to what i assumed to be your desire for base layout.

    Also there are tons of bases that offer significantly better vehicle defense than their counters. thats what im talking about with the "retreat, and fight on your terms", thing. I will say (again....) that I agree that bases need a re-work and that defenses are pathetic right now, but they are not completely useless.

    there is MUCH more infantry at the crown at any given time than vehicles. MUCH more. if there were no inf, then the tanks would have no reason to be there right? one of the things that is appealing about the crown (at least to other people) IS the infantry aspect of it. all the fighting is done on steep slopes where infantry can fight close in with one another and still have a very easily defendable base, AND sundy. people like the fast action the crown provides and that all comes in the form of infantry combat. yes tanks farm there to, but the popularity for the tankers stems from the fact that there are so many infantry.

    I havent been playing you, i was simply giving you my honest feedback. It wasnt arrogant, it was honest about posts which I deemed to be WELL beneath a reasonable discussion. please understand that none of your other posts have been like this one. hell the last few were simply insulting. why should i be considerate of anything at that point? I will show you respect now for your thought out post even if i disagree with it and cant understand your thought process. The difference is the reaction.

    Im not saying that everything is OK. in fact ive been very vocal about how much this game lacks and how many things need to be changed. I just think that this thread hits on all the wrong marks. I think that the OPs suggestions takes this game in a negative direction and im trying to fight against the same arguments that i have heard for the last 10 years of playing FPS's which have led us down the road to the games that we have now. in truth, im trying to give you what you want, but do it in a way that doesnt bring PS2 to the same garbage level as every other FPS out there. Im not bias, I just understand the ENTIRE picture. I play every vehicle and every class. I have always prided myself (as much as you can in a video game i suppose) for my versatility. Im not a fly boy, im not a tanker, and im not a grunt. i play all things all the time because becoming specialized is boring to me. so no, im not biased, i just feel that i understand all sides of the argument, and simply disagree with your assessments.

    Also, i dont try to take things to the extreme. please point out where i did because that comment took me by surprise.

    there is "victory" for those who want to argue rather than discuss. I like to discuss, but given your last few insulting, and otherwise useless replies to my posts i figured id have some fun with it. my post to you is literally the first time i have alluded to "winning" a discussion on a forum. its also the most disrespect ive been shown by a poster. makes sense?

    that last part has thrown me for a loop. I have NO idea what that even means. I dont think im evil. and post count?
  7. ScrapyardBob

    quote="ABATTLEDONKEY, post: 949594, member: 54816"]Just last night I was involved in a platoon that successfully held off, or I dont know, maybe over 40 tanks, 10 libs, countless ESF's and a metric F ton of infantry at howling pass. We took Mao, and while we were taking peripheral bases the TR came back with one of the largest counter offensives ive seen since the game launched and took back Mao. We diddnt stick around mao and then whine that we got beat. we strapped our brains into our heads, retreated back to howling pass, and got ready. the battle lasted for about an hour, but we eventually beat back what I could only conclude was a majority of the TR playing at the time (the vanu mopped them up on the other side of the map while we were holding down our fort). We were heavily out numbered, and out gunned but we utilized our assets, and played like a team and guess what? we had no reason for complaining and whining because WE WON! granted we almost lost it one time, but we put on our big boy pants and adapted to the situation at hand rather than trying the same thing over and over again hoping for different results.

    And that's really what most players want. A way for infantry to stay alive long enough to shoot back. Which means giving them:


    I'm on the fence about shields on the windows and doorways. I think it blocks some valid tactics like leading the assault with a grenade / flash-bang / stun. But I do agree that building interiors should not be as exposed to the outside world as they currently are.

    Give us little awnings or whatever you want to call them that cover the exit area and make it nearly impossible to put shells onto the spawn shield from higher then a 30 degree angle. Now the doorways is somewhat protected from overhead aircraft spam.

    Then add wall sections and other elements which block 90% of the ways that ground vehicles can lob shells into the doorway. Now infantry can actually take a step outside of the spawn room shield without dying right away. And if they can step outside, then can usually make it 1-2 buildings away. If you want to lock down a spawn room, you should need to use boots on the ground in close proximity, not aircraft / armor at 100-200m away.

    Add more roof sections over major infantry traffic routes. Give us more pedestrian bridges to get from building to building. Move control points back inside where they belong, not sitting out in the middle of a courtyard where you can be blown to smithereens by any air jockey that is around.

    Where I think the shield option truly would work would be at the walls of Amp stations or those walls at places like Quartz Ridge. Right now, the sections between the towers are mostly no-man's land. Most of them have no effective cover from air bombardment and the side walls are too low / open to protect against tank fire. If those openings could have shields (and the lower portion of the wall was turned into a corridor), you could then hide generators in the bottom of the wall sections. Now you have something which can be hacked/destroyed which softens up the defenses and makes it harder on the defenders.