Base Changes, and lost investment.

Discussion in 'Test Server: Discussion' started by Pug01, May 21, 2018.

  1. Pug01

    I was on the test server today to explore the new base changes. I understand that not everything is completed but I do have some serious concerns.

    The new bases will have massive infantry holes. I cannot place walls close to each other anymore. Here is the closes you can get two walls to each other. A flash could easily go through the gap.

    The closes I could get a wall to anything was an infantry tower and the wall had to be at a weird angle and infantry could still walk through the gap.

    The new modules are huge, such as the pain module. You can easily shoot them with a vehicle from outside. I was able to be in a vehicle and shoot over a wall at this module.

    The new structures and walls under the influence of a repair module is not very tough. One prowler was able to out do damage from the heals of a repair module. I did run out of ammo, but an ammo Sunderer and prowler could sit 600 meters or more out and work a base down. Two prowlers would make quick work of a base. Basically, the fortress that a player bases might have been, is now just a death trap of inevitability.

    One bug I found is that at the moment the deconstruction tool is actually a repair tool.

    I am concerned that I have invested heavily in base building and that I might no longer participate in base building. I hope there would be an opportunity to get certs back from the investment in base building.

    Some other thoughts:
    In Planetside 1 most bases had a neighboring tower that was always a critical part of the game play. If you ignored a tower that was under the control of the enemy they could back hack you while you progressed forward, it was very effective against the Zerg strategy where players would advanced too fast to the next base. On the other hand you could make a tower obsolete by containing it and capturing the next base. From the defensive side if you had a tower near your base you could use it to flank enemy vehicles from the tower with infantry. A tower couldn't just be ignored, because of it's proximity to the base. But the most exciting part of a tower was taking it from enemies. There used to be massive tower fights where vehicles played a minimal role in the capturing of the tower.

    Base Building was almost scratching this possibility, but I really don't see why anyone would want to build a base in the new version. If you do become annoying on some level, a squad of tanks could roll over a base within minutes. With the new base I am suppose to be on repair duty along side several other people, to keep the walls and structures up. Running around with a repair tool in my hands the whole time. Any infantry defensive measures can easily be targeted and destroyed from outside with vehicles. While any infiltrator could stroll through the massive openings everywhere and mow everyone down while they have repair tools in their hands. So now base builders will have to pick obscure locations to avoid vehicle access and effectively eliminate their use within the regular game play.

    I really don't see why I would want to build a base under the new system, not that the old one was much better. I have massive areas where I cannot build, so being part of the battle is very limited. Oh and Bio-labs being part of base building is a joke, if Amerish is the model. As soon as the base is captured all the structures explode. What is the use of the base at this stage, since the enemy captures the points are outside the base and can effectively destroy the base? Why would they have to bother with the base? And how often do we see bases built right at vehicle capture points on lattices? (NEVER) They are mostly just seen as a stop on the road. I really don't see how base building can be fixed with the current implementation, since from here on forward it just becomes a bait and switch, where someone invested in base building thinking it could be one thing and now have to live with something they feel is cheap.

    Maybe a better approach would have been to open a small continent, just for base building. Everyone should have had access to all base building items for free on this continent. This should have been the setup for a year while the developers fleshed out what they wanted base building to be. It could have been in the lineup during peek hours, or just open all the time. This would have been a better approach to find out what would incentivize players to want to fight at a player built base. I think going forward we will only see the monoliths of silos popping up throughout the lands as a reminder of the one thing no one wants to do, and that is base building.
    • Up x 1
  2. LordKrelas

    Not sure why they'd tweak the gap between walls to be larger - Given people will seal the base anyway, no point making walls barely useful.

    But the Pain Field Emitters, yeah I can see why those can be seen from outside: As otherwise, you'd have to manage to nuke the wall, before being able to even get close to the base, as it attempts to melt infantry...
    Which in their own hints, are to get in, destroy modules, so the base can be destroyed.

    Prowlers, have been able to out-dps repairs since this system came in.
    They could demolish the first version of the walls, when it was basically immortal to everyone else.

    Though, a one-man PMB should fall to a 4-man team in two heavily armed MBT's, not laugh at it right?
    Let alone a Squad of MBT's, aka main battle tanks, aka the largest & most heavily armed land vehicle.
  3. Pug01

    If your approach is a straight X vs Y match up sure. But I might as well go play Battlefield then. I can get more X vs Y there in less time. Why build a base then. The benefit from a base is to force your enemy to use infantry. This sets up a Rock, Paper, Scissors game that is way more interesting than X vs Y. Why not then run MBT all the time? They are suppose to trump everything. The idea is to make the MBT obsolete in specific situations. Current bases do it to some degree but you are really relying on the original designer to dictate how each of these bases work. Player made bases can be so much more, with each builder deciding what kind of fight they are going to be facing.

    Lets imagine a squad vs squad setup in a PMB in this scenario being setup on the test server.
    Team A: 5 Prowlers with an ammo Sunderer sitting at range. 10 gunners with an empty ammo sunderer in the back. The remaining 2 will be infiltrating the base.
    Team B: 12 players inside the base running around repairing the base.

    What do we expect to happen here? Team B has the most boring task in the game, sitting in one spot and pointing a repair tool at a fixed point in space. Now when you are tired of running 12 accounts on EVE, why not run 12 accounts on PS2 for base healing?
    Meanwhile the time we spend now on hunting infiltrators in the base is the time that infiltrators can use to pick-off repair drones. "Oh look, they are all grouped together in spots around the base keeping it alive!" What can go wrong with this?

    So, gone is the interesting fights. Why build a base at this point? It doesn't serve any useful purpose!
  4. LordKrelas

    If it's to force the enemy to use infantry...
    Then it's solid in favor of the PMB, as you just showed if the new modules couldn't be hit from outside, you'd have an Anti-infantry pain field that can't be taken out without being in the field...
    This means, the enemy is essentially turned into Fodder that has to overrun automated impossible to avoid damage.
    Rock paper Scissors , Joy. PMB counters the largest land vehicle, PMB then switches to the numerous anti-infantry weapons available to PMB, and are automated, PMB raises Sky-Shield.
    A PMB has every possible counter, and also can use every land & air vehicle themselves, in addition to infantry.
    The enemy just has themselves, no automations, no self-repair...
    And the PMB has a ton of anti-infantry measures, which is why the Anti-infantry tower is only available in the tall-version..
    As Vehicles are needed to allow infantry inside, to take out modules, to actually destroy the base..
    But if the base, is immune to the largest land vehicle, What exactly is allowing infantry to get in, when the automated system man-handles the heaviest land vehicle by itself? What about the Builders? Oh right, we haven't gotten to them yet.

    Current bases, are designed to allow infantry to operate..
    PMBs are designed to massacre infantry if they can, and with the new pain fields, that's through walls.

    Builders; Yes repair tool is boring.
    So is endlessly running into automated gun towers, endlessly repairing walls, pain fields, and Sky Shields, before even seeing another enemy Player.

    PMBs were introduced in the most ham-fisted way possible.
    First they had Hives, that dictated the entire game, and best every other option for the end game.
    They also had All-seeing-Eye turrets that could hit a needle at their furthest range, by themselves, with automated self-repair.
    Then they added OSC's, and nerfed the turrets: These OSC's were better used to defend PMBs, than attack PMBs.
    PMB's, put the entire goal of construction to discourage attackers & grind them for profit:
    And they stuck things that forced everyone else into these bases designed to be one-sided slaughter for the attackers, or a massacre on the defenders.

    The Lattice is designed around enjoyment of the fight, relatively, by a third party with no hostile motives against one side.
    The PMB construction system, encourages & motivates users to be as discouraging, hostile, and grindy against the enemy as possible.
    Where exactly does the present PMB system focus? Domination of the interior walls, with automation, amplification of force, with user-placed objects - with a tendency to literally force others into a grinding wall, for as little certs as possible.
    The best locations for PMB's, are as far as possible from any practical location for Fights.

    The lattice has no-build zones to prevent the construction system from sealing Lattice bases, glitching the bases to oblivion, or just general disruption of the lattice gameplay into a Turret War with endless Walls.

    Not to mention, TR's Prowlers would be the only ones able to make a dent in said walls..
    While NC & VS are screwed, in comparison.
    The PMB system was poorly designed, and encourages as much enforced-grind as possible.
    Hell, the original system of it, for PS2, promoted building in glitch zones to lock out the map, if no one was willing to forsake any enjoyment, all rewards, time, resources, and more into grinding down PMB walls to suicide with the Hive Explosion.

    PMBs have a bad reputation for anyone attacking them, for a damn good reason.
  5. Pug01

    Well they can be destroyed with ease (they are a module with little HP) from outside. They have to be very far from each other, and I am not sure I like the pain field idea to begin with.

    I think you are creating a straw man here. I didn't suggest that the PMB should be a slaughter house for your opponents. I suggested that it could be an ideal situation for infantry vs infantry. Especially with different layouts that could be interesting. Look at current bases (not PMB). Are you complaining that they have walls that cannot be destroyed? It isn't as if vehicles cannot get right up to these bases in anycase. The same goes with current PMB. You shoot down the turrets and then drive right up to them. With the new system, why even drive up. Just setup some distance away and mow them down.
    My point exactly, why would you want to be building in the new system?

    This part is obvious!

    I have taken on bases and quite often found it a nice challenge and I rarely lost in taking down a base, especially if there is a hive.

    The lattice system was introduced in Planetside 1 to stop the back hacking problem. You could splinter your force into small groups just hacking bases around your territories and moving on. You would end up winning if your opponent got bogged down in a zerg. Basically 24 people in 2 man or even 1 man setups flying around could own the map. The lattice system forced the fights into specific areas.

    I am more than ok with getting rid of turrets. But you could even nerf them more. If the build radius was reduced to areas that could allow player bases to match the distance that Planetside 1 towers had to bases, then that would make the game more interesting. But you would have to limit the proximity of Player bases to each other. I am not suggesting I know exactly how this would be but it could be a potential role for PMB to fill. And yes, you would have to ensure no glitching. It could even be nice to reduce the size that a PMB can be. The Silo radius being smaller could really make it much more compact and require more planning.

    I am not to sure about this. The new walls on the test server might be different than you think. It is almost as if the wall has a lot of hp with small repair. When you pause for a bit the wall doesn't suddenly jump back to full health.

    I agree that it appears to be a patch job at best. It is almost as if someone at Daybreak had an idea of player made bases but with no real fleshing out how this would fit into the game play.

    I haven't had such difficulties with taking on bases. If they have a Hive, then they have a time bomb in their base that I use to take it down. Sure I don't get them all but I would say it is at least better than 50% of the bases I go after. You are correct in pointing out that there is no XP to be gained from attacking PMB.

    Other than our disagreement of PMB being a potential nice feature to the game (I assume). We do agree on the implementation being very poor. And I think you also agree that PMB are not going to be worth building in the new system. The main benefit from PMB is the silos that can be filled with cortium for XP, hence the monoliths of silos we see across the maps.

    So back to a key point: I feel like I was the recipient of a bait and switch. And I recognize that because of the poor vision and planning from Daybreak on what the bases will be, that there is no way that this could not be a bait and switch. From the view point of players who hate PMB, I can see the point of "tough luck". But, just take anything you like to use in the game, for example MBT. Let's say the developers change how the MBT works, in a significant way, and you feel that this is no longer the feature you would want to play in the game? Wouldn't the fair thing be for you to receive the option to get your certs back to spend on something else? I don't know what the right solution to this is, but I can tell you that this is the kind of thing (bait and switch) that will get me to leave the game again.
    • Up x 1
  6. LordKrelas

    If they were shorter, and harder to hit, the unavoidable damage to infantry would easily make it near suicidal to enter..
    Which provided you want infantry to be required... you just provided the perfect counter to infantry as a module that can't be hit from outside.
    Hell, the pain field was the only thing the Lattice had, that PMB's didn't.
    It's gonna either be useless as sin (and with that tower height, likely), or murderously strong.

    No, I'm just talking about how PMB's are built by builders.
    There's AI turrets, Spitfires, land-mines, now also Pain Fields, infantry inside, any vehicles, and more, in PMB's
    Hell, Skyshields now drain shields instead of near instantly melting infantry on contact (which was used to float shields under terrain, making unavoidable death)
    Builders mainly focus on internal defense, and have a grand deal of options to kill infantry.
    My complaint there, is about quite literally the sheer number of very lethal things against infantry, which are squishy, to breach a base.
    A properly built base, tends to easily massacre infantry - which is why, they are zerged, hot-dropped into, or ignored.
    As the cert value in destruction is little - The base is either a PITA, or a breeze.

    Exactly, a base is either a nightmare from the terrain & placement.
    Or a Breeze - due to how you attack it.

    The Construction system, is either the grandest cert-farm (from mining & depositing, with the smallest risk factor)
    Or the most depressing & pointless system in this game.
    I only build with the Outfit, for good reason.

    Hex allowed the enemy to avoid any defense that could hold, until they cut them off, avoiding them endlessly.
    And the endless ghost caps as well.
    The Lattice, specifically the Bases in said Lattice, is what I refer to: They're designed around attacking & defending.
    As poor as the defensive layouts are for Lattice Bases, they at least are semi enjoyable at times.
    They aren't a grind-pit by design - (though I wonder at some bases.)
    PMB's are designed by players, to deliberately discourage attacks (they have no garages, no nice entries)

    Turrets, You can't nerf them more comically.
    PMB's hold the same Turrets as the lattice bases, with nerfs when not player-controlled.
    The problem is simple: They're either crap, or dead-accurate both constantly rebuilt & self-repairing.
    While Walls are just massive HP pools, that are sod awful as any form of entertainment, let alone while self-repairing.
    And with Silo's, it is either the endless supply of fuel, or the absence of fuel.
    So it goes down to Who has more ants & ESF's to kill said Ants.

    The original Construction system's walls regenerated so fast, that no one could break them: But a lockdown Prowler.
    So TR could focus-fire a wall apart with sheer DPS
    This is why Prowlers, are killing your walls & bases quick: Sheer DPS.
    NC & VS lack this DPS, so they'd be quite literally be unable to match or handle a wall that TR plows through.
    So if the Wall's regeneration is high, VS & NC can't break it, but TR could.
    If it's to match TR's firepower - Then TR just needs more tanks, and the other two have to get to the repair modules.
    If it's invulnerable, then infantry have to somehow get in range of modules, to destroy them, inside the PMB's walls,

    Yeah, I agree with that one.
    The construction system could've been great, but it was sidelined to the outskirts of the lattice bases, with no active means to help defend or attack the lattice, nor a goal.
    Instead it just has parts, that can't be placed (outside of select bridges or similar) in tactical locations, with lots of free cert locations, and no real practical purpose - outside of Hives, which were superior VP generators, that locked out maps.
    IE killed gameplay including the Hive building action - so self-defeating.

    The original PMB's, with the old Hives.
    You had these in hell-hole locations, on map borders, to glitched on the edge, to glitched inside parts with repair modules inside
    Sky Shields that killed infantry, with their barriers sealing the tops, or in the very ground so no one can walk near the base
    To the pin-point long-range towers sniping people.
    These were to produce EXP, and VP points over time - These were built like mad in these places, with in some cases, an Entire zerg, (some being air zergs), or squads set up to maul attackers that tried.
    Connery's WildCards & FPSK, did a lot of hives, then at 15 VP of Hive points, zerged for 5 points, locking the map.

    Today's Hives, or similar, are placed without a care given, just to start an alert.
    As there's less motive to glitch it into a rock.
    So they're placed near anywhere, as they lack of a purpose & don't generate constant points or EXP anymore.
    IE the Profit is too low, for people to care.

    And since PMB's were seemingly designed around guarding these VP generators, rather than reinforcement of the lattice, they're barely useful, and without a purpose.
    And since they were brought with a VP generator, quite a few suggestions pop up to encourage the same one-sided gameplay with Hives, but to lock out the lattice as well instead of just locking the map out...
    So there's a bit of a conflict there
    ---- PMB's should help the gameplay centered on the lattice, as they'd be amazing content there.
    Bring some life to bases.
    yet it's mostly only has tools for itself, or to dictate how the map will be run - With a hard-core motive to place it in the most glitched spot possible.
    But yes the PMB Concept is glorious; Execution was murderously bad.
  7. Pug01

    The pain field can be a hit or miss. As it stands now on the test server, it is mostly going to be useless. You can park it in a Sunderer building to protect it from vehicles but the pain field is not very large at all. Secondly they cannot be placed very close to each other. The distance appeared to be more than that of the towers. As a test I placed one in front of an infantry tower and was able to run up to the top stairs with my shields just about gone on a light assault. So not nearly as bad as the sky shield. I am not sure I like the addition of the pain field as it is in the test server, firstly for how useless it is going to be with vehicles from outside. And secondly, I don't know if it actually adds to the game play.

    This makes me think back on the tower battles of Planetside 1. And I am reflecting back on Planetside 1, since that game was able to add a lot of interesting battles in specific scenarios.
    There were pain fields in the spawn room. A medic could keep two people alive in such a pain field. If you had med packs you could use them and stay in the spawn room for quite some time. It's major deterrent was that of a cloaker trying to spawn farm while staying down in the room indefinitely. Maybe some similar concept could be used if people really desired a pain field.

    On your other points, I do on the large part agree. Player bases should have been part of the lattice system in some more thought out manner. And I don't mean just a point that had to be guarded by a base.

    Maybe Daybreak should have started with fully setup towers. For example, I could place a structure, larger than a current infantry tower, with all the receptacles for the additional items that could attach to it. Like turrets, and aircraft pads. There could be spots for spawn tubes as well. Once placed, there would be a restriction on what other player items could be placed nearby. It could have been a fairly short tower, but maybe extensions for the top, for more floors, etc. Start small then go big with experience on what does contribute.

    I don't know what the solution would be now, with what is already in place. I can only make suggestions. The true way to find out is not to stage an event to simulate what it could be. But rather to put it into play, for free, and go at it with experience and actual user play. Then look at how it is miss used and what are the true success stories. And make adjustments. You want it to be free during your development stage (free on live servers). So that you can get the most true user interaction of the system.

    P.S. Later I might do some more tests on the two new modules. I somehow suspect that the two new modules, the pain field, and the spawn router has some things that can be done that haven't been thought of yet. And LordKrelas I do appreciate the input. I somehow think I am going to regret my investment into base building for quite sometime.
    • Up x 1
  8. Pug01

    After some tests with the Router Spire.

    You can place the pad more than 1500 meters away from the base and you can place it within the non deploy-able zones.


    You can see the spawn point (a bit faint) right at the red arrows. The one at the base is a spawn tube the other is the router pad.

    Here is a shot of the pad 1500 meters away next to a capture point.

    I could also deconstruct the Router Spire and the pad would still stick around. I am sure this has to be a bug.

    I played with the new flail cannon as well and it is clear they are bringing some of the Planetside 1 concepts into the Planetside 2 game. The Router in Planetside 1 was a vehicle. It was slow and you had to deploy it, which turned it into a fix position. You next would get a pad from the vehicle and could place the pad within 450 meters of the vehicle. A portal between the two points would be established and anyone could travel in between the two spots. With this new system in Planetside 2, you can place a spawn point down, inside any location (with a light assault on top of structures). Keep in mind this new system is different than a beacon, since it can be inside a building and anyone on your empire can spawn there, not just your squad.

    In Planetside 1 you had two choices. Destroy the pad (which you did by shooting the top of it). Or destroy the vehicle. If the pad was heavily defended the other option was simple. You place a personal waypoint on the pad location and go take your aircraft in a loop about 450 meters around your waypoint, and 9/10 you would find the Router vehicle. The other possibility was that it was in a hidden location, and there were only so many of them in a base. For this to be of use there most likely was an AMS right next to it. Since Command Rank 4 and up could Orbital strike, they just had to locate the spot and Orbital it. Or you send in your AMS destroyers and take out the AMS, which made the Router pointless.

    If the Test Server version goes live, you can place a Silo with a repair module and a Router Spire somewhere hidden on the map. Drop in with your light assault or stalker and place the pad and everyone can spawn there. The Zerg effect can keep the pad safe and you can always just be prepared to place another. The one benefit is that MAX units won't be spawning, where as in Planetside 1 version, MAX units could get setup at the AMS and then go through the Router teleporter.

    I can see a benefit in situations like Biolabs where the Teleporter rooms can get camped and no one can get in at the pads. I can envision a stalker getting by and placing a pad in a useful location. This could quickly turn the tide. You could also see AMP stations using a gate shield defuser and placing a spawn point on the capture point. Skip the whole working your way past the generators. Just Zerg everyone in on the point.

    If the distance issue is solved and lets assume it would only work for local base ranges, then you would build a base to defend the spire. This could be a different approach, but with how quickly bases could fall with this method, base building is going to be all about what you can pop up fast enough before you move on. It wouldn't be about major planning, you would want to put up those essential structures to protect the spire and maybe have several vehicles defending the base while it is of use. Once done you would move on and abandon the base. There wouldn't be a real advantage to building too much, since it would just take too many people to keep the base operational for such a temporary benefit.

    New bases are either going to be small such as Pill box to hold the repair, shield module and sky shield. And Sunderer garage to hold the spire and and pain module. All I have to keep repairing is three structures. Or people will just spam a Silo, repair module and Router Spire, especially in weird terrain such as Hossin or areas on Amerish.

    I truly hope this item gets a look at, sure it can make for exciting game play but it could also be a major game changer. I think I would be ok with either setup, but I doubt this would promote base building.
    • Up x 1
  9. Ledess31

    3 years later, nothing changed... I'm disapointed by this studio
    • Up x 2