[Suggestion] Base building quality of life improvements, suggestions: better building-play for everyone!

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Gleerok, Jul 4, 2022.

  1. Gleerok

    The forum is full of threads asking for a Base Building overhaul. This post aims to submit a few suggestions to make the base building mechanic better and funnier for builders and all players. All proposed ideas try to take into account the complexity to implement and balance issues that may arise. The goal is to keep them as simple as possible and as less disturbing to balance.

    1. Theme: decrease No-deploy zones (25% to 50% or akin to sunderer no deploy zone)

    Reason: Why? I feel all continents should be more like Oshur. For instance, Indar has so many no-deploy zones that bases are forced into specific spots, it's always an ally rush to see who gets the decent spots. On Oshur, bases complement each other. Other continents could mimic this with a small change, without, of course, hurting the overall purpose (Oshur will always have more place/meta for Bases, but others could be better). Please allow us to build bases on top of canyons and mountains on Indar, it would be great!

    2. Better structure and module placement

    2.1 Explanation: I like building. But I don’t like - and many others don’t too - that it is too difficult to place modules considering the terrain and natural obstacles. The thing is always red! Sometimes there is that wall you just need to be placed to plug a hole in your base, but I cannot be placed anywhere properly connected to your other walls/pillbox/infantry tower/name your structure here because of a millimetre issue due to a rock, uneven terrain or even other structures themselves. (Also: The pillbox always leaves an opening when placed near a Solid wall. Infantry tower has the same issue and so do most structures; bunker..etc)

    2.2 Existing solution: would it be an existing solution to Build on perfectly flat terrain? No, Because That works for roadblock bases. OS, Router and long-term support bases need some hard-to-navigate, uneven or high-up terrain around to survive against armour and even then that is a double-edged sword. Building up high is preferred, on my view, as air is better deterred than armour. However, most of Indar’s canyons cannot be built on top of, for example. Just why deny this? Under the current system, most uneven terrain will make it a nightmare to place modules and structures.

    2.3 Proposal: lower the requirements and make placements more tolerant to collisions with existing buildings/trees/terrain features. The solid wall is one of the few structures that have considerably “softer” requirements, it could be used as a reference in this case. A “pavement” structure could be created, it would be put on top of existing terrain to support additional structures/modules on top of it. You can use existing models and textures for this!

    If you could, having a “hinge-like” mechanic with walls and gates would be amazing. I.e.: trying to place an additional wall/gate near an existing one would “clip” it to the edge of the existing construct (this could be prompted or auto), allowing you to move it around that area as a hinge until it is green and ready for placement.

    2.3.1 Additional idea: create spots "hardpoints" in which modules could be placed inside specific structures. The Pillbox, for example, could have some spots inside of it to simply attach modules to (especially the Elysium Spawn tube); no need to play whack-a-mole with the terrain "collision with existing structures - too low - too high" messages for 3 minutes to place a single module.

    3. Permissions: Router Spire cannot be unlocked for Squad / Empire use.

    3.1. Overall issue: base permissions are not working properly. Trying to change a Silo’s permissions will pop up a menu, but no options are available. I don’t think changing an OS to “empire” will allow the whole empire to use it. Most modules are broken in this sense. I would love to let anyone use my flail/glaive/OS.

    3.2. Owner offline: long-abandoned bases should be auto-claimed by the remaining squad leader, if on a squad, or be available for claim by anyone who refills the silo and confirms an auto “request” by the silo. E.g.: “You are filling a Silo without an Owner. Would you like to take charge?”. If the owner comes back, his base goes back to him. I believe this would even encourage people to buy more modules (Hey, this base has this cool thing, I will buy it too.. Perhaps with DBG).

    4. More cooperation points to encourage base play

    4.1. If I hit an OS with my base, everyone who filled the silo up to a certain amount should get some exp as they are contributing to the war effort. Air/group Vehicle spawns could count as support XP and Ammo tower refills too.

    4.2. Ocean vehicle terminal for Oshur and new ocean constructs!

    5. AV Turret.

    5.1 The worst turret by far, it often becomes a liability. The turret will hit the base itself non-stop if someone parks an enemy vehicle at an angle or in a window of a rampart wall opposite to the AV turret. This is a blatant exploit. Please make it so it doesn’t fire unless it has a view of the enemy. I know the auto-fire is bad and inaccurate, but I could care less about this if it would at least not kill its own base…

    That is all I have for the moment, if I remember anything else I will post it here. Please add to the ideas, I am all ears.


    And thank you for your consideration, Dev Team!
    • Up x 5
  2. RiP0k

    The forum is full of topics, but the developers themselves said that there are no plans to work on the construction system.
    • Up x 1
  3. Gleerok

    Hey Ripok, thanks for the update. I've been out of the game for a while. Would you be so kind to point us to where they said they wouldn't work on the construction system? I have hope they will not abandon the mechanic on the long run, even if there are no current plans to work on it. By the way, the already planned Squad changes could very well apply to the construction system (even though I believe this is unlikely). For example, the permissions to use modules are a bit buggy/glitchy, like the router spire and orbital uplink structures, which we cannot allow squad members to use.
  4. Demigan

    Better building play for everyone, but only the sharing of assets would make it better for more than just the builders themselves.

    1: better for builders, and not necessarily more fun for everyone. Fighting on a mountain top you can hardly reach is rarely as fun as you make it out to be for the attacker. If construction got a proper overhaul it could be an improvement.

    2: all better for the builder to make unfun murder holes. It needs to be fun for both the attacker and defender, not just for the one who created it. There's little incentive here for anyone other than the builder and farmers to join the base, and little incentive for attackers to use anything but cheese to attack and destroy you.

    3: better permission system is good.

    4: again viewed from the builder and defender, not the attacker. More points for cooperation is good, but that needs to extend to attackers as well. Beating down a single wall or piece of the base can be the difference between dozens of kills and building destructions and none, and you should be rewarded for it. Even the simple act of disabling a shield so allies can score kills through it should net you rewards for every kill made.

    5: good I guess. Less bugs is good.
  5. Gleerok

    Thanks for sharing your views Demigan!

    1. We can already build on top of high places. A good builder will always look for a spot that will make it as hard as possible to kill a base. If the base cannot be reached by tanks, a well time galaxy drop through the shield can make a good invasion (is that even possible anymore? My apologies if this changed). Also, it would be highly unusual for a base to be unreachable on foot, you could drop nearby, get into the base across the vehicle gate shield, secure a spot inside such as in a infantry tower and make your way from there.

    and point 1 also related to another issue: the current no-deploy zones. It is unfun that the current strategy for keeping bases always is to simply flood the map with "fake" Silo bases that take up all space so anyone, ally or enemy, that wants to build, has to get hid of the empty silos first. Allies are competing with each other for spots because they are scarce, and enemies don't even bother constructing, they just put a silo somewhere they don't want a base to come up, the other team has to look it up and destroy it (it is not even a base, just an empty silo). Increase the available spots would help this a lot a hopefully discourage this kind of play.

    2. Related to 1, we can already build bases that cannot be accessed other than through the vehicle gate shield, the current system just makes it unnecessarily harder to do it. Why do builders need to waste 3m to place a single wall if the "green" spot is somewhere in there already? It is hard, but we can do it anyways. This would be purely a quality of life upgrade for things that we can already do, such as placing modules inside a pillbox or other structures. It is hard but we do it anyways, at the cost of a unnecessarily high time for placement.. a simple pavement structure that we could use to build things on top of would fix most issues. I'd like to see teams scouting a base, learning the weakpoints and planning a coordinated attack to take a structure inside, kill the vital modules and destroy it from there rather than the current zergs that just storm the base with 30 tanks and that is truly unfun for both attackers and defenders.

    3. Simply yes!

    4. I agree, why not? more points for attackers can also be a good thing.

    5. Sure!!!
  6. Demigan

    1+2: that is the problem, we already know those bases suck to attack. Its not fun, so people cheese it. That is why you'll see someone destroy it from afar with a tank or use an infil and cortium bombs instead of a regular attack more often than not.

    There isnt an incentive to make a fight fun for the attacker. What fun is it to go to a PMB that is just another meatgrinder where you are either farmed to all hell or cheese it in order to progress?
    What should happen is that builders craft bases where both attackers and defenders can have fun engagements. For example by placing a building immune/highly resistant to vehicle fire but leaving openings for infantry to pour through and fight in would be a good start. The entire design should be about making sure that there can be a fun fight, so the incentives need to be there to make a fun fight.
  7. RiP0k

    http://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2...he-construction-even-if-its-long-term.257219/

    And given the direction of the developers with the same Oshur, namely the fact that they update the continent without touching the construction system, it means that they are not going to work on the Construction System. They wouldn't make useless transport for a single continent. And they would change the Construction System. But as we can see, everything goes on the path of ignoring the Construction System. So, as for me, there is no sense in proposals to change the construction system, because they do not take them into account.
  8. Gleerok

    Those are good points indeed

    I guess the biggest incentive that would be easy to implement is: decrease exp/cert gain for destroying/damaging base structures/modules with vehicles to 10% of the current values (i.e. If destroying a module with a vehicle weapon grants 150 xp, make it 15 xp. If damaging a module grants 30 xp, make it 3). In exchange, Increase infantry/max exp by 100% (double it). THIS would encourage players and teams to attack a base on foot.

    I'd like to share that yesterday I forced NC (WTAC) to attack my base with a galaxy. It was built so up high that tanks were not effective. They tried to attack from afar with a colossus but I flipped it with an orbital strike (I laughed, even the driver laughed). This was enough to get their attention and they dropped 6 players on my base. The base feel quickly, as I was defending it alone and I couldn't kill the lodestar galaxy. However, I guarantee that if I had 3 to 4 other players well synchronised defending the base with me, it would have lasted a lot longer and, even though I was attacked out of rage for destroying their colossus, THAT was an example of base storming that I'd like to see more often. However, for that, I had to essentially negate any tank/vehicle play to force them to attack the base strategically (tank play was negated because the base was so high up in a mountain).

    Also, I don't understand why would building an airtight base be cheesing. If it is out in the open, it is instantly obliterated by a single MBT or air vehicle. The only times enemies were discouraged from soloing my bases were in cases my base was so airtight I just kept c4'ing/farming their lone tanks until the player gave up. With open bases this is basically impossible.

    Let's have fun fights then. I'm not entirely certain how long modules survive against a constant barrage of vehicle fire, but they do seem to go out pretty quickly. Besides making cert/exp gain for vehicles really low, we could have more resistance (general) against vehicles, and internal objectives such as: hacking a gateshield, placing cotrium bombs on specific spots that could heavily damage a wall from inside. Right now, walls and gates do seem relatively weak against vehicles, but ridiculously hard to take down with infantry. It does seem this could use a flip; make them stronger against vehicles, more vulnerable against infantry attacks from inside (and give infantry 100% more xp for that, while effectively negating xp gain for vehicles).

    The reason why I say structures seem weak against vehicles is that I got picked by a single heavy fighter, dervish, which had a top weapon that could strike from afar. It simply kept killing structures one after the other, even with repair modules around. (Yes, I am looking at you, recursion, 00, cheesing this sort of gameplay for your precious k/d ration, NC cowards.).

    So, a single heavy fighter, with a single mounted weapon, can kill walls from outside, of what are supposed to be fortifications. This doesn't seem right at all. Not fun for me, the base builder, and not fun for the attacker (unless you are a K/D ration, farmer, obsessed min/maxer).

    Finally, regarding tank / vehicle play, during double XP events it is fairly common for teams, including my own, to just get a bunch of sunderers to "farm" enemy bases because they give so much XP. 12 sunderers with Basilisks will quickly tear down any wall, for free XP. Ridiculous. This needs to change. Walls are supposed to keep vehicles away, and they can have the trade-off of being highly vulnerable from inside.

    There is no infantry game inside bases if the structures cannot stand for longer than 3m under heavy fire. Sieges are not even sieges, they are just base erasures right now.
  9. Mitoh

    My biggest struggle is trying to get any progress towards directives, I've rushed in to try and set up a base near the front of a fight at the beginning of a continent unlock and in the process of building the first few buildings someone else can come in and drop and orbital strike building before I do. Now I don't have access to use it anymore, so they get to get their OS kills and I'm SOL because while I can pick up and move to a different spot all the spots near the fight are already taken by then, and shutting my base down would be a detriment to the faction if I'm already in a good spot.

    Struggle #2 is its so easy for one skilled person to take down an entire base. It takes so much work for one person to try and maintain a base, and it is far too easy via terrain clipping with a tank, cloaking, cortium bombs, etc for one person to take a base down piece by piece. Automated defenses just aren't strong enough, the minimum distances that modules can be close to each other makes trying to secure a base at certain points of the map due to terrain and other issues very hard to do. I would think bases need to be designed so that a squad has to take them down.

    The reason I think that is because of the current no deploy zones, very few places on the continents do bases have to be gone through as opposed to easily just gone around, or ignored. Because they don't have an effect on the lattice at all. Now IF putting a base down would change the lattice structure that would be an interesting balance change, and that would DRIVE factions to defend construction bases, but the majority of the time unless your squaded up, or you some how found a spot between bases you can actually build on to slow down a zerg they never flock to a defense of a construction base. Until that mechanism is in place, your more then likely solo defending a base which brings what to the table exactly? You gotta place down about 20 structures before you have anything resembling an adequate defense just to put down something you might, and emphasis on MIGHT be able to use offensively, because fights can move in and out of bases so quickly sometimes. The range on glaive/flails are limited, you can't use them on bases now for the most part, the ranges around bases are so big you can't even help defend with them. They aren't going to really help defend your own base because of minimum ranges...

    The whole thing needs a new "purpose" what is the "purpose" of construction bases, what is the goals and rework towards that. They are too limited to be considered sandbox bases atm. I either put every structure down as a base, or almost nothing as an expendable base such as glaiving another base nearby knowing mine will die in an attempt to take another down or weaken it, especially if its a mega base made from 4+ people. Which is getting harder to due because people have already learned the best places to put stuff down to protect them from vertical siege's, the center of amerish for example has some places that make bases nearly invincible unless you overwhelm them with armor/zerg.