[Suggestion] Bio Dome base design revision, revisited.

In line with earlier posts of mine way back in 2013 regarding the issues with combat flow surrounding the Bio Dome and revising it such that the flow is better connected (1. "adding stairs/in between levels" 2. lowering the height of the dome), I decided to come up with a third way on what it could be like, which is basically the way I would have envisioned base design for many main bases.

Basically what is being adressed is the problematic disrupted flow from outside to inside on the Bio Dome, the lack of sabotage infiltrator roll in base assault (as jetpacks do this better), defenders being easily numericall overwhelmed due to having to cover too much ground and some other things where basically the game degenerates into camping a lot.

As a refresher from earlier posts (click images to enlarge):



As you might see, especially teleporters are a major disruptive issue in my view. I would prefer to see them go, but if they would have to stay, I would require control of both sides to be established, meaning the link can be broken by holding one side and to only serve as a short cut over short distances. This to prevent the need to camp a minor building behind your own defensive lines and reduce campish gameplay to choke point holding where feasible pushes can actually be made.

Subsequentially, I came up with two compromise ideas, which had been brough to developer attention and provoked two responses.

COMPROMISE IDEA 1:
Use existing art, add in between stages. This concept was drafted during Beta, while there were no ground-airpad links yet, at all.





Dev answer (Higby) :

After drafting this design, the lifts to the air pads were created with the AMS buildings at the bottom, probably as a compromise between this idea and the Beta state where there were only (open) teleporters into the Bio Dome.

COMPROMISE IDEA 2:
Sink the bio dome into the ground without requiring a major art overhaul. As you can see, this idea already implements some tunnel design. It still has a level in between the dome and the ground though.





Dev answer (Arclegger) :

Iirc Dev in question moved on from base design though. So who knows if this might be implemented in Searhus.


IDEA 3: PS1/PS2 HYBRID BASE DESIGN
Okay, so here is the uncompromised design. A pure hybrid of PS1 and PS2 design which would require a massive art overhaul. Posting it, because I was not happy with compromises and people need to realise the potential of implementing PS1 design into PS2, while learning from the mistakes of PS1 and upscaling it for use in massive multiplayer levels.

The basic concept this is the base design vision from PS1, updating it for the needs of a larger base populace (more entry points, wider corridors), the existance of jetpacks, better wall protection, PS2 turrets, PS2 and simply more sophistication in non-linear options like having more than one generator (where generators control sub-sets of base equipment, rather than one generator to power all).

As another refresher, this is an abstraction of what PS1 bases looked like:



You can clearly see the lines of defense, where the amount of gaps indicate the amount of links between layers and at what level the objectives are to be found. Some of these levels might be interconnected, skipping one or more layers through some chokepoint tunnel. If you compare to current PS2, we're usually not seeing such clear layers of defense lines:



The problem with PS2 bases is that there's no structure to defense, since all the buildings and objectives are spread all over the place. Some recent outposts in PS2's Hossin in particular have a setup that's more in between these two extremes. But you might recall that tower in the center of Indar, which has natural cliffs as additional defense perimeters and creating chokepoints at roads, which can be bypassed with effort. This is basically the effect that is aimed to be achieved, just such that it doesn't generate an entirely one sided fight.

Basically, defenders should be able to establish control by a default, where the attackers should find ways to undermine and destabilise this control, creating gaps in defenses. These gaps in defenses should be manually created though, where currently they simply exist to be exploited, often leaving attackers to bypass and simply ignore the defensible positions entirely.


So what I'm applying here is the doctrine of layered base design as illustrated in compromise idea 2. Using buildings and shields, sections of the base are divided into different stages that are each directly connected, with a lot of non-linearity in the attackers options due to there being various ways to disable defensive features and by having the option to manually create bypass routes to get behind the defenders or to critical objectives.

It also means you get a number of infantry only/dominated areas, which are all connected, but provide a slightly different feel: tunnel combat underground, city combat in the dome. At the edges of such infantry zones, there's a transition section where infantry can fight vehicles from partial cover at least.



So here's a quick update sketch up of a Bio Dome that has been lowered in height (like in the second compromise idea), with its entire sub-structure replaced by a solid keep with just vpad entry points. This reduces the distance to travel to and from the top, without compromising the Infantry only aspects of the dome. This is done by having the height of the walls and depth of CY ("inner castle moat") around the Dome ("castle keep") such that tanks cannot fire inwards unless they are positioned higher than the walls.


Vehicle and air pads
The vehicle pad provides one of three "open" entries into the dome: vpad and two airpad options. The vpad is only partially shielded, so that enemy infantry and vehicles are not reliant on infils and jetpacks disabling generators here. They are however hindered by the partial shields, which benefit defenders more (shorter routes, partial cover, can fire through).


The lowered height of the dome also means that airpads become roof cover for ground units in the CY (further roofing/infantry catwalks could be employed if it turns out necessary and poly count isn't a problem). Airpads as such can provide natural cover to AMSes. But AMSes could also be deployed in the vpad hangar, without this resulting in an instant likeliness of a win like used to be the case with an AMP station, due to the CC being tucked away further inside the Bio Dome and closer to the defenders than to the attackers.


In this design you can reach the walls either directly from the airpad, through towers from the CY or through the tunnelsystem from the inside. The tunnelsystem would be protected with IFF doors, that only infiltrators would be able to open. Infiltrators would either have to be dropped in or get through the CY gates. Jetpack troops can get up to the walls to clear the upper level and guard level, but they can't open IFF shields.


Possible generators and other objectives
Inside the "keep", walls and tunnel system you could find objectives to secure or destroy (sabotage), such as:

- Gate Shield generator - Powers a gate. Located in a room underneath or next to the gate in question.

- Turret generator(s) - Powers (part of the) base turrets. Located in a room adjecent to or in a tunnel underneath wall sections.

- IFF shield generator(s) - Powers IFF shields that provide access to the tunnel system. Located in the base of the keep. Could be divided into external and internal shield generators.

- IFF shield console - Operates nearby IFF shield. Can only be reached from the friendly side.

- Spawntube generator - Powers barracks spawn tubes and equipment terminals. Located in a room adjecent to the spawn room. Once destroyed will drop spawnroom IFF shields too.

- Defense Perimiter Generator - Powers jamming device which provides protection against drop pods in the base's Sphere of Influence. Could be located inside the keep or in a room on a rooftop.

- Main Power Generator - Distributes NTU and power. Supplies NTU to semi-independent base generators, nanites to equipment and vehicle terminals, airpads and resupply points. Thereby directly or indirectly providing power for all base facilities. Generators have about a minute of individual power once the Main Power Generator goes.

- Control Console - Hold to capture the base. Location varies, but typically lies closer to defender than attacker and is always located inside the main keep but exact location varies with base type and design.



As listed above, the addition and optional consequence of destroying the Main Power Generator could cause all other generators to stop receiving new fuel and eventually power down, rendering the base defenseless. In contrast to PS1, this would mean that there would be a delayed failure of defense mechanisms, whereas in PS1 when the gen went down, a fight was virtualy over. Obviously, when such a gen is down, no attacker can use or repair any consoles and terminals either, so it is a tactical choice.

Objectives inside the keep are defended by IFF shielded sections. Shields for the tunnels could either be controlled by a generator indoor, or by hacking into consoles close to specific shields, which would temporarily disable these shields, allowing a temporary bypass. The bypass could be closed by defenders by either restoring the generator, or if the generator was up, by manually purging the console from the virus. If the gen is up, the defender can also wait for the Adaptive Virus Protection to clear the console by itself (ie. base restores function after say 3 minutes).


This then is designed such that large and small groups can defend a larger base by controlling choke points and maintaining a defensive perimeter, while large and small groups can have feasible tactical assault objectives to dismantle a defense. Even solo players like jetpackers and infiltrators can try to open alternate pathways or disrupt the defense of a zerg.


Infiltrator changes
In my view, the infiltrator should be the most suited unit to infiltrate a base and sabotage. However, currently I feel the infiltrator is more oriented towards killwhoring and can do too much damage to troops without having to be ultra-careful like in PS1, simply because it gets too much firepower for a stealth role in PS2.

It is my view that if this firepower is to remain, it has to become an alternative to the sabotage infil (which would be the most stealthed). Regular infils should no longer be able to turn or hack into consoles. Which means they will run out of ammo sooner and can cause less havoc with base equipment of the enemy if they already have firepower.

The saboteur infil would be the only one with the ability to hack enemy consoles (without permanently turning them as PS2 infils do now, they should simply open them for use by your empire too, not exclusively) and use a limited amount of planted explosives. This infil only has a sidearm for defense however. And no, it should not be as effective as a SMG unless you headshot with it or something.

Such infils would get the option to bring a limited amount of detonation devices (inventory limit) to instantly blow up a generator. However, to blow up the Main Generator, they would have to plant 6 devices, while they could only carry three of them. Why? To ensure that they have to either not go in alone, or move through the base to resupply, risking being found and shot in the process. Obviously, such devices would cost resources, could be dismantled and would be destroyed upon a respawn by the dead infiltrator (being revived doesn't count!).

All other classes would still have to use the overload mechanism. I would here also add that the time to make something start an overload procedure should be a little bit longer.


This would ensure there is a huge optional tactical advantage and element involved with infiltration, where timing and support is everything, but a single player can feel like they can have a big impact away from killing. Either way, it would make the infil the most suited to get behind enemy lines to generators hidden in cramped tunnel systems, in contrast to jetpacks which would be best suited for capturing walls and securing courtyard access.

It would be skillbased (remain undetected / alive during mission), it would be balanced (can't do it constantly), there would be countermeasures from a defensive point of view to control and funnel enemies by maintaining control of access points and equipment. There would be less running back and forth to generators thanks to IFF protection.

Whoa man, that's a ton of work.
I personaly love it, but how did you manage to get an answer from the devs?

That's a ton of work and i love it! Yes, please YES.

In response to "Takes too many polygons" who cares at this point. EVERYTHING takes too many polygons, especially hossin

Nice?

Yeah, I think that sounds cool.

Sorry, I only skimmed it.

Looks good m8, liking it.
I particularly like your wall ideas, simple but effective.
If polys are a problem i can see plenty of useless crap on the underside of the dome and on the top that could be removed. No1 ever sees most of it anyways, only a LA or 2 that get lost.

Thanks. To answer your question, established contact pre-alpha with Higby, met him and Arclegger at Gamescom Cologne in 2012 and 2013. Higby had already been reading my PSU threads with great interest apparently as he knew immediately who I was and what my pet peeves were and was very enthusiastic to talk to me (even gave me his email ;p) - the base design and driver/gunner debate in particular, but I've had a lot of influence on the AMS design and some influence on lattice and base design. Although I wanted it to be a different unit from the Sunderer, beyond that the devs pretty much implemented all my important AMS suggestions. (Malorn is responsible for the no-deployment zone though, I was against that and favoured mere obstructions and relocations of barracks and control console and basically more emphasis on internal base layouts).

A lot of the defensive features of towers, outposts and base walls are inspired by the thread I've linked in my sig.

Probably, but performance is a valid argument why something can't be done. To me though it seems only valid as long as one keeps the huge supporting leg substructure in place. Performance is hugely important, but so is battle flow. In fact, I'd say they are equally important arguments and a design should satisfy both demands equally. They aren't conflicting demands really, more than that they are limiting each other.

Wow, it's almost like you're a Dev...
Great respect, sir. Keep up the good work

wery nice

How about making the REK (the tool responsible for hacking) dependent on the kind of stealth you use?

Either take the REK away from Hunter and Nano-armor cloak infis or...

Introduce Advanced Remote Electronics Kit (AREK), which would be able to hack just everything and put it on stalker while normal REK would only be able to hack certain types of things such as disabling some less important IFF shields on the outskirts of a facility, thus creating a small passage (infantry only) that lasts only a few seconds, allowing infi and a small group of people to flank the enemy more easily.

This way stalker infi actually becomes a saboteur (able to hack turrets, important shields,consoles and everything a normal REK can hack), while normal infis can use their REK to attack from an unexpected direction. This actually ads a purpose to use the stalker cloak, which currently is just for lulz.

Truthfully, I love this idea, but I don't want infil to change again. Infil has had 2 major changes at least, And I at least would prefer to keep Hacking for hunter/NAC the same as it is now. While I think it is an Amazing idea to add more hacking to stalker infils, I would like hunter to remain the same as it is now, or with better hacking abilities.

What I have understood I do really like it, but I disagree with your view on infiltrators. Infils don't really get superior weaponry, we only get bigger dmg per shot, but that is countered by the increased recoil and other things. The problem is, the Infil can't be sneaky, it's just impossible with so many people concentrated, and so many chokepoints, and there aren't any real reasons to do that, you can't hack the gen or do anything important, at most you may snipe, spot people and use your SMG to annihilate from behind a chokepoint.

To make the Infil more sneaky, we need reasons to do so(which you have given), better cloak(right now, crouch-walking is as visible as running. That makes sneaking really hard with Stalker), and more ways to sneak, avoid chokepoints, and prevent randomness to **** over the mission.

That being said, I do really like your idea of having sabouteurs. We do already have Stalker cloak, so it could work. But, I don't really like the idea of only Stalker being able to hack things. I prefer Alan Kalane's idea of giving the Stalker an improved hacking tool.

As you haven't got much replies from the community, I recommend you repost on Reddit.

I think the ideas proposed and analysis done are pretty spot on. I don't see biodomes changing outside of what SOE already has in mind though only because they're already in the process of being revised. It goes without a doubt that biodomes are still one of the worst places to fight in this game currently because the fights themselves are just biofarms/zerging. The two things that will happen currently are:

a) faction spam/camping at the airpad
b) faction spam/camping at the teleporters

With the implementation of external facilities which the biodome relies on, this would force defenders to push outward while also encourage the attackers to move in as well. One thing which also stands out for me would be tunnels, as I have yet to see true 'tunnel combat', though as you mentioned a few of the bases on Hossin do have some form of it, albeit simply not tunnels (multi-tiered buildings with 'underground' passages).

I think the best example of bases where defenders have a chance are:

1. Bastion
2. West Pass (Has some tunnels as well)
3. Hollowing Pass

What I THINK would be better though would be a more larger/fortified version of the Stronghold, or at least the same 'concept' of it.

Though...I never really saw what was wrong with PS1 bases considering they worked just fine. They were simple in design and effective. Though I don't think PS1 bases, unless they would be expanded upon in design, would be suited for 96+vs96+

Every so often I get genuinely impressed by a post.

Great ideas!

Well-thought out, well-written post. I really like the approach behind it that emphasizes the flow of battle.

Good post, you spent a lot of time on this and there are a lot of good ideas on paper, and that's the problem. Just because something looks good on paper doesn't mean it will actually work. There could be tons of unforeseen problems and issues that come up. The game already works, not perfect, but functional.

It's simply too much work to test something this big (redesigning most bases, and infiltrator class). Maybe over time, but progress has been pretty slow lately (no thanks to supposed upcoming Playstation release that's about as useful as an ice cube maker in Antarctica to the PC playerbase).

Which is why it's a good thing I've had 10 years of experience leading NC and being known as one of the top NC saboteur infils on Werner in PS1, not saying I was the best on NC (though some claim that), but you could be sure that the better outfits would go out of their way to single out me and up their defense checks if they saw me in the killspam (as being killed).

I've seen how PS2 works and I'm not thrilled by it due to lacking objectives and mismatches in balancing attacker and defender parties in building design. A lot of the new fortifications are a lot better (and often inspired by my suggestions it seems), however, I still miss pure insight in how defense buildings work when I see walls without walkways you can use to fire over at attackers (such walls only provide cover to attackers).

I don't simply apply paper. I apply years of observation. I know where the PS1 design bottlenecks occured and I knew its flaws and exploits all too well. So any concept I make extrapolates on both that and the presence of more people.

I've proposed these things since (pre-)Alpha (based on screenshots), demo footage, beta, release and so far never been wrong as far as I'm aware of. I know chances of reworkings are low, but at first they thought an AMS type vehicle would not be introduced either. They took my advice on other things too (dual side monitors instead of rear, visual of a deployed mode, interference radius between AMSes, not the deployment zones, merlons, inner protective walls, closed or fire hole windows in buildings to reduce accessibility and external threats, roofing, safer spawn room exits and battlements for towers, side protection on base walls, initial tunnelsystem for defenders only (prefer two-way option) in some bases, moving spawns underground in some places, fewer cap points per base, a lattice implementation instead of whack-a-mole and some capture rules, ground-airpad link at bio labs). And yes, I know I can take partial credit for those since I talked directly to five or six devs about those things. Of course all credit goes to them for the final versions and making the choice to actually implement them. But they have made that effort and I respect that. Unfortunately things don't usualy go as fast as you and they would hope.

So yes, these are things that should (have) be(en) part of the core-designvision.

However, even if it is hard to implement on existing bases, they can still be implemented on future maps that have yet to be worked on or are being worked on. Eventually they could be slowly retroactively implemented.

So basically, though I think it's late for PS2 to adjust its course, they have on several occassions made massive and detail improvements alike. PS4 is their top priority now and I don't blame them for that.



Speaking of map making. I wish they'd make more maps at a faster pace by applying the large stereotype bases with a few satellite bases at first and having them "adjusted for character" later, filling in areas with outposts over time where the flow needs them. This would increase the map making speed and would also help teach the devs about battle flow, where are outposts needed as a stepping stone to cover distance or incite people to use certain lattice links, where are they needed as a bottleneck to slow invasions down, what kind of effect does it have on gameplay, attrition, etc. That sort of thing. This would make the entire map feel more natural too and make players more familiar with the main type of bases. All bases being manually made now and so many per continent is causing massive release delays.

Just going to focus on this for a sec.

You don't "just" get bigger damage per shot (which you don't need). You predominantly get ambush potential. The "snipefil" and "killfil" as I refer to them are very capable of being sneaky. And tbh, they are everything I loathed about certain killwhoring infils in PS1, just with much more firepower.

Yes, I'm kinda elitist when it comes to infiltration, since it used to be my PS1-carreer. Of course, the PS1 infil had a perfect cloak when standing still, but about the same as the Stalker cloak while running and a bit fainter when crouch walking (or tapping, ie. step by step, which meant you never got to visibility because you'd light up based on acceleration as well as speed). You also got to use hacking abilities while cloaked and could fire shots while visibly cloaked. Another major difference from PS2. Timing a hack was basically looking around, make sure nobody was close or sounds obscured your REK's hacking sounds. You'd aim the hacking beam such that the shimmer of your body or vehicle parts would obscure most of the beam (since you'd be visible and stuck in one position for 15-45 seconds without a gun out).



Patience, timing, opportunistic, pacing (slow movement down to one step per three seconds to avoid causing a flicker and being discovered, sitting still for two minutes or more to find an opening or opportunity), time pressure, silence, melee defense, combat avoidance, stealth, sabotage.




Those are the words I lived by, it was hard, rewarding and I could single handedly turn the tide of a 100 vs 100 battle. I have won or saved so many bases on my own against odds most PS1 players considered "too marginal to bother with", on a daily basis it's something I'm quite proud off and one of the reasons I kept playing PS1, the infil challenge. Simply because most people are run and gun types and don't stop to observe how players behave and why (and when!) they sit where they sit. As an infil in PS1 with the goal to take out bases, you sit and observe. Constantly. You look for openings, you look for patterns in movement, you look for predictions and timing of movements, you listen for sounds and changes in behaviour that suggest you've been spotted or could have been spotted.

Since you had a bad TTK, you'd only go for wounded or distracted players. If you went after full health players, you'd have to wait for a couple things: they shouldn't have their gun out so they would first have to grab a gun (impossible in PS2), you'd engage from behind, above or side so they'd need time to turn and aim. You'd try to avoid engaging players who had Dark Light, heavy assault or shotguns. You'd scavenge off the land for ammo and medkits, or use enemy terminals for resupplies (or the Wraith's trunk). Some infils would use grenades (which were spammable but fairly weak against any infantry unit with armour, but would be instakills to infils or would light them up with a green glow making them easy kills).





PS2 "infils" do not have the above traits in gameplay. They play completely different. They don't really have objectives to go for since Jetpacks beat them to it. They can't even try to dismantle AMSes even (one of the main and most dangerous jobs of good infils in PS1). Again, jetpackers do that much better with C4.

With a lack of "real objectives and purpose" they do what the class allows them to do and nothing more: killwhore. Aside from sniping, pick off people in what I'd deem "Rambo combat", some even throwing themselves in the midst of enemies, a lot of ambush play, but with far more firepower than in PS1 giving their opponents far less chance to defend themselves (and no, mosts infil players in PS1 and PS2 were and are very crappy ambushers because of their timing and lack of situational awareness - I would say PS2 is worse for infils too since there is no third person (!) to use to acquire information and stay undetected or scope out threats and act preemptively).

Objective play in PS2 - as is - seems simply better designed for jetpacks. The capture systems of PS2 do not allow for instant resets or captures of towers or outposts by a single infiltration strike. Not just because of the ticket/timer system, but also because of the fact that if anyone tempers with the control console by even being ten feet near it, it gets shown to all in the area. This wouldn't have to be the case if the control console was somewhere in a controlled, indoor, guarded area, behind several lines of defense, where it should be. Somewhere you'd ALWAYS first have to pass through defenders. In PS2, control consoles can be 150m from the nearest defender. There's no real infiltration needs.


Hence I'm only suggesting that PS2 infils get stripped of certain things to get back a lot more. I think PS2 has a long way to go, but to maintain high firepower and high hacking capacity for some infil designs would simply make them OP if you give them access to backstabbing through tunnels and access to terminals etc.

At least, I'd see how I would be OP since I see the options I'd be given and I'm creative enough to use them (luckily for most I'm a pretty lousy shot ). Frankly, I don't want to be OP.

Quite true. The problem is, killwhoring is everything, PS2 it's just killing the enemies so you can go to the capture point, then kill those who try to take it back. Also, I don't know how it was in PS1, but on PS2 an ambush it's not really useful, people are just revived or spawn and get to the same place in seconds. And ambushes aren't easy, the cloak is ****, crouch-walking is as visible as sprinting and there are too many chokepoints.
I prefer a hundred times what you have told me: sneaking around, waiting for the right moment,and then acting with devastating effects. BUT as PS2 doesn't have any depth, we can't do that. While I would really like that, first we would have to change base design, objectives, etc. We would need to change the whole game. But until Higby decides to add depth, the killwhoring infil has to remain.

BTW, what it's so bad about using weapons with infil? I understand you prefer the saboteur, but the cloak is a really flexible tool. It for example synergizes extremely well with sniper rifles, and that sniper rifle could be used to kill everybody who tries to take a vehicle.

Thank god this guy isn't in charge of making changes to Infils. If you think Infils have too much fire power you have never played one. Why do you want to a turn an entire class into a PVE class. Infils and their great battle against terminals and gens. Wow that would be a really fun class to play.

If you think this would be a PVE class, then you have either not been paying attention, or completely lack understanding of what I just said. Thanks for being so rude to not pay attention and slap some insults on top out of your own blind arrogance though. :/

Now please, I urge you to read all of the following first, carefully. Then STOP. Think about it. READ IT AGAIN. Then respond. This is not as simple as you made it out to be and it requires far more thinking of you to make a proper judgment.



Basically, with the changes I'm proposing, I'm putting you up against the entire contingent of defensive players in an enemy base, on your own with only comms to get support from outside and time and guide their attack with your sabotage. By putting you behind their lines of defense with a meaningful job and with all of them trying to stop you from accomplishing your goals, which is playing to win the battle, rather than playing to win the duel. The stakes are far higher.

I'm putting you up to find and dismantle the backbone (units) of the enemy offense, on your own, in an environment of bloodlusting enemy PVP players, with nothing but your wits as your protection.




Passing through, avoiding, running and defending from the enemy players on your way to your objective to take out that which enables the enemy to sustain a defense is definitely not pure PVE. It's 95% PVP and requires a far greater knowledge of enemy behaviour than simply what their current movement vector is. You need to be able to see the bigger picture and keep track of ALL enemy players that might pose a threat to your mission at the same time.


Which frankly, is too daunting a task for the novice player.


It's a hell of a lot harder than regular PvP. You'll be alone. Nobody is gathering intelligence for you. You're completely surrounded by enemies. Any wrong move on your part is potential death at the hands of an enemy player. You're not up against "the environment". The environment, including the objectives, are just a tool to use to defeat your enemy on a higher abstraction level. You'll be at their spawn tubes or generators, dismantling them or getting gear, with dozens of enemy players spawning and rushing around you, carefully selecting your PvP targets so others don't become alerted to your presence and you survive. You have to analyse every player's behaviour in shooting range for whether they'll be engaging you or not, if you have to act, fight or flee. That is not PVE. That is pure PVP. That Generator? It's just a gimmick. A MacGuffin.


This is pure PvP, despite that you're not doing pew pew with pretty laser beams ALL the time. Note that you still would require plenty of pew pew, trust me on that, just way more selectively and when you have to, rather than when you can. You will of course use it when you can and there are no downsides like getting detected by others or if you've got no more important target. Not everyone can make those decisions well, let alone pull it off. This doesn't mean it's boring, I can guarantee it's far more thrilling than anything I've experienced in PS2 (where frankly killing becomes extremely dull and repetitive, especially when there's yet another spawncamp).

What I'm talking about is a game of survival in the most hostile environment you can imagine. And I don't think you're cut out for it at the moment. Not because you couldn't, but because of your current mindset which seems to be obsessed with firepower and duels. And remember, you´d still be able to do that with some setups of the class, just not with the saboteur setup. So if that isn´t your thing, nobody is making you do that. Not me, nobody else.

But right now, I can tell you can't even imagine how it would work, let alone what you'd have to do to get there, or contemplate what lines of defense you have to cross in order to carry out your missions. You´ve clearly never experienced the type of gameplay considering your comment regarding PVE.

Hence right now, you'd probably be toast with your lacking imagination and creativity, because what this really is is testing the limits of your brain, creativity, opportunistic thinking, experience, situational awareness, positioning, movement, analytical skills and requiring you to constantly make life or death decisions. It takes a lot of time to master that, simply because you´re playing this infil game against enemy players, not the environment.


Please realise that the things you do with infiltration now are basically the same as Jetpackers do, just using semi-cloak from the ground instead of using the rooftop of a building above to get the element of surprise. There is no real infiltration class. It´s basically a form of redundancy.




So yes, while the objectives are "PVE", they are only a minor part of the actual mission. Those gens will be defended. You will have to defend your exploits from dozens of very angry players to make it last. Can you honestly say you even remotely considered that consequence?

These objectives are protected by a few hundred PVP players ALL dedicated to hunting you down and stopping you before you can accomplish your task, or killing you after you seemingly accomplished your tasks to nullify your efforts and undo your hard work. Because YOU and the objective you took out (and have to keep out) would be the reason their base and farm would get lost. Not some random cloaker that throws themselves at them for a couple quick kills, then is shot and forgotten about.



I'll try another analogy too. Do you really think placing C4 with a jetpack on a Sunderer is pure PVE? Someone placed that Sunderer. The Sunderer is just a tool for win or defeat. So are generators and such.

Think about it. Someone (probably dozens) defend(s) that Sunderer. Does that mean you first kill all defenders of that Sunderer before you take it out? No. Is it even advisable to attract attention from the defenders if you want to blow it up? No! You might have to kill when detected though, but to really beat the enemy, you take out that which sustains them!

Ask yourself this, is it really more PVP to jump over people to place explosives than to sneak through them at just as much or more risk and then to take over the Sunderer or blow it up?


Killing a player once if he or she can respawn is only marginally meaningful. But as long as they can respawn you have not defeated them! Killing a player is just one way of defeating them a little bit and pushing them back a little bit. Similarly, taking down an objective someone is defending means you defeat them. Not in direct PVP combat, but in indirect PVP cat and mouse and attrition games. Taking out that AMS or generator is just as much if not more defeating the enemy, because you strike a critical blow that is much harder to recuperate from. And you're not beating just one guy at once, you're beating up all those people dependent on the tools you're trying to take out. You're beating your opponent and aiding your allies by stripping the enemy from their tools, then causing as much mayhem as you can while it's meaningful!

So what I'm talking about is, the way you play a saboteur is to first make a meaningful critical strike, before you use what little firepower you have for mere killing, but when you do, every kill is actually final (provided no medics pass by to revive them). So when I killed 7 people in a row in PS1 with my handgun, explosives and whatever I could scavenge... Or by ensuring I would stall them securing the objectives long enough in melee, smoke and mirrors, distraction and general chaos, that their lines would collapse (at least a little bit) under the external pressure of my allies.






Oh and before you stop and go "too long didn't read", sabotage objectives also makes meaningful strikes with say a Galaxy Drop far. FAR. FAR. More deadly. It makes Sunderer drops and Galaxy drops useful tactics. Infiltration objectives are not done just on the infiltrator scale, especially if an objective is defended well. A Galaxy Drop is just an alternative method that uses blunt force, instead of a scalpel (stealth, critical hit). Now consider applying both in synchrony: an infil striking at a crucial generator or opening a door for a force to get through, then joining the fight or causing chaos to enhance the chances of the assaulting team.



Tbh, that you didn't even consider using a scalpel says more about you than about the way I design things. :/ Though personally I think it's more a sign of the current generation that simply hasn't been taught patience in gaming.








But to get back to PS2 infils and "must not have played them" (please... grow up, that ad hominem is as old as Pong and it hasn't gotten more valid since). Considering Infils have a faster TTK and can use sniper rifles as SMGs, where they can start and control the terms of an engagement because of the stealth and ambush element, I'm very well aware of the potential of PS2 infils even at imperfect cloak.

Thankfully they gave such units imperfect cloak in PS2, because otherwise you'd see nothing but infils and frankly, there are way too many in a given battlefield as is because they are as OP as they are now.

And yes they are OP as is: range, one hit kill (or so fast it might as well be) at both long, medium and short distances with sniper rifles, shotguns and SMGs. The class has very few weaknesses and can easily go toe to toe with the heavier grunts in direct melee combat and out-accuracy them. In some cases even with hipfire.

If you think they're not OP as is, maybe you're just not as good as you think you are, or you simply have very little to compare with out of inexperience. :/