Common, we already know that everything for the ANT has to be bought... just like the Eng Spitfires. Link Disruptor bunker: Smallish, underground (easier to prevent creating world clipping issues, I assume!) and indestructible "squad size" bunker with a few larger rooms and a generator inside. Can be placed anywhere within a enemy hex. While "active", as in present, it will unlink that zone to other enemy zone. Removing tech plant or similar benefits, but only removing "hack link" to the neighboring "disrupted zones". Concept image idea: For example: If TR owns 4 zones away from their warpgate. 1-2-3-4 in length towards the middle on one lattice line. Disrupting zone 2 would only affect tech plant ability (lets just pretend the warpgate gave that ability link in this example) to zone 2, 3 and 4, but it would not prevent TR from hacking the next zone from 4 to 5 (because the disruptor was in zone 2). However if the disruptor was in zone 4. Then it would prevent TR from hacking zone 5 even if they had a open link and their base was not destroyed because the disruptor affects neighboring zones in that way. Lastly, in "classical Alert" it would also affect the score similar to a "cut off". So if TR had a enemy disruptor in their zone 2. They would be able to capture zone 5, but land % for zone 3, 4 and newly captured 5 would only count once the disruptor bunker in zone 2 was destroyed. Defeating the enemy Disruptor bunker: You fight your way in. Overload the generator and once the generator blows, just like any PS2 generator, the bunker goes down. Maybe make the bunker have a "destroyed state" (like a destroyed building in Arma or similar) look that lasts a few mins before it all just deconstructed into thin air like destroyed vehicles. ANT "resources" cost: High with an additional personal cool down of 15 - 30 mins to prevent "wack a mole". General gameplay benefits: In my view this would add a thing minor squads can do to have an actual impact on the battle. It would move part of the combat to places it usually never happens. It would add an additional strategic element to Alerts or similar. It would be a good "base" template to build upon in regards to having other ANT deployables that could support it. Like the classical Ageis cloak shield bubble that could be used to hide a Shield Deployed AMS etc. Twice the effort, stronger AMS spwan. Adding ANT walls, cover and so on to defend the bunker. Thoughts?
Edit doesnt work for me so: Once the bunker is destroyed. Aka the generator goes down. Everyone present in the whole bunker is instantly killed (ala PS1 generator room) and the entrance is blocked with "ruble". After a min or two, the whole thing disappears/deconstructs. This to prevent people gaining access to "under the map" and so on.
ANT: Distributor Bunker (continued / Edit does not work in my browser) How the bunker almost regardless of size will be able to be put "almost" anywhere. Depending on if its needed or wanted. Image Legend: Black is map terrain/buildings seen sideways in 2D. Blue is the actual bunker layout. Red box is a "no deploy" zone similar to AMS red zones already ingame and placed similar in editor (radius on map). Red line to blue box are the entrances to the bunker. One downward slope and a vertical shaft. As you can see. The terrain differs depending on where the structure is placed, but the ONLY thing that is adaptable depending on the actual map terrain are the entrance length. These are dynamically and automatically extended by the software as needed in order to try to make the bunker fit under ground regardless of where its placed. The places the Dev team does not want bunkers to be placed at all have a AMS like "red zone" were the user gets a message that the bunker is conflicting with a "no deploy" zone. The only thing the user is focused on in general however is to put the entrance it sees as a "Eng turret like hologram" somewhere where it turns green and press "deploy". Some times that means the vertical entrance can be very long, other times it does not and so on. But the point of doing it this way is that it will not have any negative impacts on the current maps in the game. And since everyone is killed off inside the bunker once the gen goes down AND the entrances are then blocked. There will be no other objects under ground when the bunker deconstructs a min or two later. Once the "dynamic entrance length" software code is in place one can also in rapid motion sell different DLC "themed bunkers" from "PS1 Core Combat" like, have winter themed or desert theme and so on or whatever if wanted:
Lastly, IF The Forgelight Engine is NOT capable of doing a seamless transition between "main map" (Indar and so on) to the bunker via clipping and invisible textures in X radios tricks or other issues. One can also solve that with having much simpler entrances the ANT deploys as an object above ground and where players are just teleported to an instanced server that have value impacts on the main continents server (the disruption parts). One then just have to take into account that the owner faction of the bunker needs to have a "restricted area" like teleport exit room so they can not just telefraged incoming enemies before they are able to control their character because they are loading. If faction owners use the same entrance to gain re enforcement they just have to run fast through the "restricted area" in order to stay alive. Doing it this way would also lift restriction on the shape of the bunker in general. It would also bring a new definition to DLC "Maps"! LoL
The thing is, regardless how fun it might sound, it is a terrible idea. This game has an huge code to handle all traffic to and from the server. Include 3 huge open worlds and an exponential rate of traffic for each person joining a fight, and you see that the server is handling an incredible amount. This is a reason why there are no doors. They are an actor in their own right. The server has to check their status every now and then, which increases the chance of lag in big fights. Also, the code has to prioritize one thing or the other. This will result in bugs. If you change or add one thing to the game, all the priorities will shift for good or for worse. Now your idea will add several things. It will add new area, which is often harder to do than you might expect. This area is an actor in itself, as the server has to check if the bunker is still there. An extra actor for the generator too, which will introduce lag earlier again. And now two important things. You allow large things to be created, which could end up in weird ways in the field. When prioritizing goes wrong in the code, bits and pieces might show up at other creation processes, or even something unrelated. Another is that you remove some of the surface at the point of entry. Making a code that specifically says a permanent surface can be removed is very dangerous. Glitches and bugs can make you easily fall through anything, and hackers could misuse some parts by convincing their own client that there isn't a surface somewhere via in game code, gaining access to areas they shouldn't have yet. Much more subtle codes than they use now. It would only cause extra bugs and hazards by implementation and could break the game with every addition. It shouldn't be implemented because of it.
I respond to that aspect in the 4th post from the top. That solution would create no such issues and MMOs have been doing it for years. If anything it would actually offload one server to another if 50 people were fighting in the "instanced" bunker. The trigger flags between the server wouldnt be a huge issue ether because its basically a question with a yes or no to and pre existing conditions if its a Yes (active bunker in a zone) to the question. With less manpower to create ACTUAL new large scale continents. I think its a great idea to create potentially several ways of mixing the combat up both in game mechanic ways, DLC and fresh locations for both players and DayBreak.
I like the idea. My idea was to have a ANT Link Connector where you would create a temporary lattice link where none existed before. So both Link Connectors and Link Disruptors sounds good to me. Lot's of potential meta there!
They are already giving us ANT destructible turret towers with the promise of additional building construction types, so there are a lot of these "actors" coming to the landscape that you're warning us about.
