Construction is unrewarding and seperated

One can think of construction as one wants, but it is in the game. Still, most people agree that is a parallel world, not touching to battles of planetside at all, besides locking the continent.

Those people are right!

The flaws

I was playing around with construction, and it feels seperated and unrewarding.

It is seperated, beacuse of the no construction zones. While there may be technical limitations, most actions take place at bases, not in the lonly desert. When they annonced construction in the first place, my first thouhgt was: "Wow, now i can finally make a base defensible". Well... . The few places where a base makes sense are far to less, like the canoyons of Indar at Quartz/Techplant.

It is unrewarding! The 1.5k certs dropping from time to time from gens are not worth the effort. One can easily get more reward when just farming the cortium. If you build a base, you are feeding the enemy XP. There are cheesy tactics to blow up every base, like passing throgh the skyshield with a gal and unload maxes or pull 10+ tanks and shell it to death (vs bob the builder and 2 randoms, mostly).

The few bases in good spots, where people have to pass, are giving great fights. This leads to another flaw: Counter constructions, like OS and IPC.

IPC and OS

Let us assume you want to attack a base with these: The IPC dart can be shot down and is easily identified. Most of the time, the IPC does not fire at all, or the damage is nullified by shields. It takes far to long to take it out. Usually a normal assault is faster like shooting an AP tank at great distance or stalker-crossbox in order to take the skyshield out.

The OS on the other hand takes an eternity to charge, 45min for max and 10-15 min for min fire range. You usually can not place it on frontlines/unprotected, since you can not hide it as it appears on the map. Since you need to place it usually quite far away due to terrian, the waiting time is 30min usually. In that time the enemy core allready paid off. Other than that the OS is useless: It can target inside bases (seperation again), on mobile forces you hit **** if they are aware, and taking out a deploy sunderer is the best to hope for.

Suggestions:

1) Decrease the No-construction-zones. More room to build.
2) Spawn tube and vehicle spawner should not cost cortium per spawn. This could open their use as forward base.
3) IPC should 1 Hit kill shields, reduced rate of fire. ATM you chase the dart or ignore it...
4) OS ready to fire after 5 min from building at max range, and has a reload time of 5 min. The offset will be that the blast area is tiny, maybe 1m. The blast area is scaling with time, so after 40 minutes it has back its full potential.
5) OS is not able to be fired into skyshields, nor damage shields at all (generator bubble).
6) OS is able to target inside conventional bases
7) Skyshield is a usual 1 way shield, unpenetrateable for any vehicles and infantry. No burn damage anymore.

Those suggestions aim to merge the construction system with normal gameplay and reduce frustration, like long waiting times. Further the role of IPC and OS is better defind.

It does seem counter productive to advertise the OS on the map.

No, they should require resources. In fact, all spawning and resupply functionality continent-wide should use a resource-consumption mechanic of one sort or another.

One of the reasons it is blocked is that the developers would have to program a concept of interiors and exteriors for all existing base structures.

Not yet encountered a divebombing Galaxy whose "bombs" are in fact its passengers who disembark when the vehicle is on the other side of the shield? It works this way so that it's not a perfectly impenetrable defense structure but an effectively defensive structure.

Agree, a decrease but in a way that you can't build inside a base. If you can place walls and stuff close enough to protect entrances and the like, or create your own Sunderer protection near the base, it could give bases a nice way to be fortified. The fact that you can't build up and into the base itself prevents problems with griefing and helps with offering gaps in the defense that the attackers can exploit.

One thing though: Bases would probably need something to prevent tower turrets from shooting inside the base they are stationed at. It would be quite a nasty (read: unfairly powerful) thing to have (potentially automated!) turrets from the attackers shoot into a base.

I would prefer if they kept costing cortium, although the amount might be dialed back.

Not sure about this one, haven't used the IPC too much and haven't seen it used much either.

This idea has a lot of potential.

This is already in the game. If you throw a dart under/above a skyshield it gets denied.
In light of suggestion 6, I would add a denial zone nearby spawnpoints, as well as invulnerability to OS strikes for anyone within the painfield of a spawn. Especially with the 5min cooldown you propose that seems a pretty important feature...

Yes, but with limitations to their use and potentially with a longer charge-up time before they fire. It would be too cheap to farm biolab entrances for example with one of these otherwise. Perhaps even add a minimum chargeup time of 15 minutes before it can be fired into a conventional base, so it's really more of a single use tie-breaker (or resetter) than a farmtool.

I think that infantry that is immune to falldamage upon passing the shield should receive damage from it, as well as any aircraft. The shield's DOT effect is meant to weaken Galaxy drops so they aren't too easy at taking out a HIVE, it's not meant to protect against infantry and ground vehicles that walk/drive through because you placed the skyshield module in a ditch.

As for my own idea's:
Add a line of ANT construction items that are aimed at sieging. We currently have the OS and IPC, but we need something more for actually attacking.

Examples:
Timebomb:
Place near a wall, all players within the vicinity (say 200m) will be alerted to it's presence. The timebomb will go off after 4 minutes and will destroy any wall in it's AOE even if that wall is protected by a repair module. Timebombs can be destroyed by small-arms and explosives but is well protected, or it can be disarmed with repair-tools. The timebomb is aimed at forcing the defenders outside and creating a gap in the defenses if it goes off. AOE of say 10m so it needs to be relatively close to a wall.

Jumppad:
The Jumppad has a range of say 20m and lets say a hight of 2x a rampart wall, in case the wall is put in a high spot. This is a relatively short range (2 Sunderer lengths) and prevents players making free slingshot positions for C4 fairies, which would be a bit cheap.
Anyone using the jumppad will be immune to skyshield effects for the duration of the jump.

Double XP weekend Ripplist and I (Saneeke) were 1st and 2nd for certs on Emerald. We are both builders. Near 6k certs per day...

The building system is VERY balanced. AND rewarding! I put forward bases that help keep the momentum going by providing vehicle spawns for Sundies and Lightnings. I farm kills by putting down an anti vehicle turret right outside the base we are attacking and get 30+ kills without dying. I love the construction system, and it has totally reinvigorated my joy for this game!!!''

The Orbital Strike needs to stay on the map, otherwise it would be WAAAY overpowered. Even now, if the person has a substantial defense set up, it is hard to counter an Orbital Strike, and that is exactly how it should be!!!

My only gripes with the current construction system is people that exploit certain parts of the map where you can place modules under the surface of the ground (where you can not hit them). As soon as that is complete, I think the construction system will be just fine. And sometimes there is a bug where the OS is indestructible, but hopefully that will be fixed soon as well.

I am also looking forward to more "decorations" being added, and if possible, buying camo for your constructed bases.

i was hitting top 100 for exp daily gain over the weekend, mostly running engy rep sundy and ammo for squad mates in particular made it possible plus i had a boost running. But i do not think it was even close to 6 k aday maybe 2-3 depending on the intensity of the fight.

Now according to you you can double that with construction eh? and did you use a boost? cause if you did not that means you made 4x certs. Mine was about 300-400 ish an hour. Do posts some videos i am curious to see the numbers. but then again cortium can be a pain in the buitt to get as it spawns slowly kinda, sometimes 5 mins minimum before see a node. We probably should focus on cert per hour rather then a day as we might have played different amount of hours for comparison sake.

What if there would be Lattice links to consturction zones instead of some bases?

So if you build a base there, it would activate the lattice to the next base.

Either that or have the current lattice bend to include the built base, that way they can't be ignored, and give a big bonus to anyone who shows up to fight at it.

You must be one of those guys that says "my weapon is twice as powerful as any other, it's balanced!"

This is exactly why the construction system isn't balanced and isn't enjoyable. It's aimed at one person, the builder, without any regard for the attackers and their enjoyment or rewards. It earns you a great deal for low skill work and it gives you a massive advantage over anyone attacking you.

As well it should though, bases weren't all meant to be taken in a 1v1 fight. And once you're talking about team vs team, the advantage is on the attacker's side. Attackers choose when to attack and if you don't have a dedicated squad+ at the ready, you just don't stand a chance. I'm actually leaning more and more towards including them in a lattice, that way there's a time and place to fight at each pmb, I just don't see any other way to get all the lemmings rounded up for a good base fight.

The base should give an advantage, but that doesn't mean the attackers shouldn't have things to counter it and equalize the fight. Things like siege equipment and methods to actually crack a base, other than what you suggest "get more people in there before anyone shows up to protect it".

agreed, construction is too seperate,
i've often said that they should change is hugely,

first remove the VPs from hives (completely, not half and half like critical mass)
no more passive construction for locking continents.

secondly, remove no construct zones from allied bases, construction is now an integral part of base defense,
is a zerg heading down the lattice? then head a few bases back, set up walls + turrets at the entrances, a spawn tube by point etc.
this would also solve the problem of bases being so horribly indefensible.

Are you saying we don't have enough siege equipment already? Those orbital strikes are pretty nasty and implemented very well. Like you often say, instead of bribing people to fill a miserable role, make the role fun. As long as a squad can drop in any base with zero notice, there's the boring job of guarding the base. Changing how effective defenses are only changes the number it takes to gal drop a base, so I think the only solution is to find a way to make them an objective that lemmings eventually make their way to, and letting bases control a lattice sounds like a great solution.

I find it very enjoyable. And you're right, I can 1v3 people all day long. But to be honest, they don't have to keep coming back to attack my base. They could just drive around- I am stationary in my base. And I would argue that building is more enjoyable with a team that knows what they are doing- for example Camswift's group on Emerald. They build huge bases, defend them, and have turned the tide in several alerts. I am looking forward to the Critical Mass update and agree that player made bases should not be the deciding factor in an alert.

And the other question- yes, I had 2 boosts going during double XP weekend- Alpha Squad boost and a 50% XP, and I am a supporting member. I was averaging between 400% to 520% bonus xp. I don't mind AT ALL paying for membership and buying stuff to support a game that I truly enjoy!

The fact that we have options for siege equipment doesn't mean it's enough or adequate.

The IPC at least is used as siege equipment against another PMB, but my own usage and the usage I've seen for the OS is mostly defensive of the base or region. Such as shooting large masses at places where enemies are bound to congregate, such as the bridges near Mani Fortress or the area between Quartz Ridge and Indar Excavation. The few moments I've actually seen it used against another PMB... Was when I fired it against a PMB that was being build to destroy my PMB. So rather than siege equipment against a standing PMB the OS has more uses against PMB's designed to siege.
Then there's the time investment. It takes easily a quarter of an hour before you can fire an OS at another base, assuming you build it nearby. And that's ignoring the time spend building a small PMB in the first place. In the meantime any other act in the game is quick and easy. You want to mobilize and start assaulting the next base? You can be there within 3 minutes and have an attack full-swing. With a PMB it takes more time and effort to first get the resources, establish a base, get your siege equipment ready and in the case of the IPC to get some guys ready to exploit the opening you offer.

Which brings me to the next problem: PMB's are the siege equipment against itself. There's practically nothing the attackers can do to get ahead without building their own PMB in the region. Nothing except out-zerg the defenders before any more show up for example by gal-dropping on them. And if zerging by Gal Drop is too effective it needs to be solved, right? And in that case we should agree with LtBomber1 to make skyshields impassable objects (for infantry, you don't want it being impassable for tanks so that it becomes an even more supreme defense to build a Skyshield in a ditch) so you can't use that route unless you first disable the skyshield.
So what's wrong with adding some siege-equipment that the attackers can use to even the odds, but while actually attacking the base rather than building your own?

Gee, and with 300 players per empire at peak times on a single continents, isn't it strange that the total amount of players involved in your base is around 4 people, if that? This means that while a niche amount of players find it enjoyable, the larger portion doesn't. There has gone too much effort and time into the construction system to satisfy less than 1% of the playerbase, of which 3 of those 4 people in all likelyhood aren't having a good time but are only attacking your base because they feel obligated to do it for their empire.

Which is another thing: PMB's are completely separate from the game. You can gain VP's with them and lock the continent, but that's as connected to the rest of the game like getting VP's for a Sudoku puzzle. Only in this case it's worse as exploitive positioning of a PMB can make it super easy to protect them.

PMB's need to be integrated into the rest of the game. It would mean that there's more team effort in building and maintaining bases, which is good. But if they remain as they are they would still be a nightmare to attack for the opposing side, which isn't enjoyable and it would be better to actually leave the construction system as a wasted effort than push it down people's throats without making the construction system enjoyable to attack.

Complete removal is a terrible idea. People will be able to grief incredibly hard but also create super-fortifications. Just imagine someone blocking off the entrances of a base with rampart walls and placing a repair module inside. Now you've got an invulnerable defense that's impossible to break!
Worse, imagine what it does to a Biolab. There's enough room inside to build a Silo. Now place 1 rampart wall at each entrance and 1 repair module to back them up, and no enemy is able to enter! Especially if you place the repair modules out of sight in case enemies start firing through the firing slits.

Just let things be build close to bases, perhaps you could do something with minimum distances from existing buildings so that regardless of what you place it'll never intersect with the base itself. For example, an AV tower isn't going to be intersecting with buildings any time soon, so it can be placed within 10m of any building. The Rampart wall is very likely to intersect with buildings, so it can only be build 50m away from any structure (not sure how long a Rampart wall is).

Another thing: Current construction denial zone's would each have a limit to the amount of constructions it can bear. The reason for construction denial zone's is the effect on performance it has especially in already large bases. So smaller bases would allow for a lot of extra constructions to fortify it (or attack it), while big bases would offer far fewer constructions within it's area to make sure players won't be suffering performance dips (or any more than they usually get).
And again, having some siege equipment for the attackers is vital. Imagine the attackers setting up some turrets inside the base making it virtually impossible for the defenders to do anything but get slaughtered even if they outnumbered them 5:1. That's not good gameplay.

I would say that there is a small community of players that really enjoy attacking player made bases- you see the same names capturing Hives all the time. I don't care how big the base is, a good infiltrator can solo it if there is no one protecting it. A small team of infiltrators can take out even a well defended base. And if that doesn't work, just orbital strike it- which is HUGELY gratifying!!!

Just because you don't find it "enjoyable to attack" doesn't mean that others fail to step up to the challenge. On Emerald, it is rare for a hive to last more than 10 minutes, and it is with great pride when you build a base that can defend a hive until it maxes it's efficiency.

The construction system isn't a detriment to gameplay- it's an alternative.

While I agree with the general premise that construction is largely unrewarding and almost entirely separate from combat, I don't fully agree with all your suggestions to counter these problems.

I agree, mostly. I think they should be much smaller on allied bases, but remain the same on enemy bases. Allowing construction to be more of a defensive tool, prepared in advance.

I disagree, and in fact agree with another poster above, that spawns at most (but not all) bases should have a resource requirement of some kind, allowing sieges to be broken by cutting them off, real logistics and such.

I disagree, though with no-deploy zones significantly shrunk (as per suggestion 1 and answer) it becomes a powerful defensive tool, if the no-deploy zone does not extend to the usual areas outside bases where sunderers typically park. Allowing it to fire inside a base, would give too many kills to a single player for a single action, and creates the potential for causing too much grief to friendlies.

Yes, I've done my share of HIVE killing, and that's why I know that it's a terrible activity.

Even if there is a small community that enjoy attacking it, does that mean it's A-OK? No ofcourse not! Look at the extreme amount of effort and time dumped into this, only to give a small community within the already small community something to do? While there's a very large community that actively and vocally hates HIVE's and attacking PMB's?

Even if you enjoy it right now, there's a ton of reasons to change the current system to make it more enjoyable for the game in general. And the only reasons to keep it like it is, is because a small community enjoys the status-quo.

I don't fail to step up to the challenge, but the challenge has to be enjoyable, and for something that took so much effort, so much time and has such an effect on the game, it should be an enjoyable challenge for as many people as possible, not a small community. And "small community" is stretching things when it's barely 1% of the entire playerbase that actively participates in the entire construction system.

It's a detriment to the gameplay, because the alternative it offers is disjointed and badly balanced compared to the rest of the game.
Again, imagine if 1% of the players in the game went playing Sudoku, and could get just as many VP's for the continent capture as the other 99% of the players. It's an alternative and its' separate from the game, but highly detrimental as it completely skews the balance and isn't enjoyable.

Another way of looking at it: Imagine if we had the perfect game. It's perfectly balanced with perfect variety, goals, achievements, challenges etc. But there is one flaw: You add a button that auto-wins you any combat scenario you happen to be in.
The enjoyable thing for the entire playerbase is that no one uses it, and it would in fact be the best thing as it would mean the game lives up to it's potential and can live on for years to come. But that's not what's going to happen. One player uses it, out of spite or griefing, and more people will use it "if only to stop the other guy from using it first".
This isn't an analogy, it's just an explanation as to why having an alternative approach that is both disjointed and non-constructive (no pun intended) to the game is bad for it.

I've always have thought that there wasn't any point to attack PMBs, they don't have any direct control of a lattice, and in most circumstances you can simply bypass them in-order to get to the next base. Maybe if when you build a base it takes control of a hex......

I fully understand my disposition could be due to my play style, most times I can only play for about around 30 minutes, so I look for a decent fight, which is never at a PMB. To this day, I can only recall one big fight at a PMB, by big fight I mean that there were 48+ on both sides.