Malkryst's initial thoughts on the base changes

Discussion in 'Test Server: Discussion' started by Malkryst, Apr 12, 2013.

  1. ScrapyardBob

    Yeah, we're definitely missing trenches / foxholes.

    I define a trench as something that infantry can run down, is only 1.5-2.5 people wide, too narrow for vehicles, but which vehicles can easily drive over. Parts of the trench should be head-deep (you can stand and a vehicle won't touch you, requires a ladder to get out), other parts should be crouch-deep (standing up you can shoot out, or crouch for cover, but you can also jump out at those points). Bends in the trench every 10-20m make for limited line of sight and harder for the enemy to fire down the trench from the flank.

    We get that a little with some gullies here and there, but those also interfere with vehicles. Trenches usually have boards/planks at intervals, plus a vehicle no-clip so that vehicles can pass right over. So they provide a way for infantry to move from A to B without being shot at, but without impacting vehicle flow. Plus, infantry can use them as quick-cover, unlike bridges over top of the vehicle flow.

    Combine that with foxholes which are enclosed on 3 sides plus a roof over at least 1/2 the length (think 2-3m wide by 3-5m deep), which have firing ports opening out onto a valley or view. Which gives infantry even more places to hole up.
  2. sLoP0101

    This is almost exactly why I havent gotten the test server yet. My ISP imposes download limits (100gigs), so to download 8% of that to test is pretty much not an option for me. I'm about to give your idea a try, I will edit with the news.

    EDIT: Tried install on top of copy, and copy on top of install. Both methods did not work.
  3. Zan_Aus

    Holy crap, that's what a real base should look like, where is that?

    (PS: Not every base but we should definitely have a LOT more of these in game)
  4. EvilNinjadude

    It looks like Mao Fortress, but I'm not sure. Definitely on North Indar and not Dahaka. So either it's attached to Saurva or Mao, or they've changed one of the outposts without me noticing.
  5. ScrapyardBob

    Suarva South fortress, it's new - on Test, not on Live. I commented on it extensively earlier in the thread.
  6. EvilNinjadude

    Yeah, saw a new outpost being added there on the map. However, it's on the opposite side of our TR warpgate, and with pops being so low constantly, us TR have never been close to it, Especially not when I'm on. So I've never been there.
  7. Stew360

    Ghost capping on low pops servers will always be possible lol

    the new systhem still allow a certain amount of freedom and strategies while define a half conquest half rush type of definition if i use the BF equivalent its a mixs between straigth path from rush modes and total freedom of conquest

    so i think it will kinda work better sicne yes ghost capping is to much of an issue rigth now in the current game to much silly peoples enjoy ghost capping for a (( xx reason )) that iam not able to comprehend ...
  8. Nimbat

    I disagree.

    Popping generators and SCU's is a great way for an organized squad to bring a fight to them. It can also be used to sabotage a base and soften up defenses before the zerg rolls in and captures it.

    In my opinion a valid tactic.
    • Up x 1
  9. Being@RT

    Attacking gens/SCUs ahead of time is basically the only thing left other than rolling with the zerg or tactically flanking with the zerg.
  10. MilkAndHoney

    Well, besides the "B" point of the Crown I really like the changes that I can see on the new Indar-Map. The bridges at Broken Archroad and other spots will do well. Also the new cappoints of Crossroads Watchtower will add new fighting spirit to the game!
  11. Malkryst

    That's a shame.

    On the popping gens/SCUs ahead of an assault, I have no problems with that - I enjoy sabotage - what irks me is when, say, the empire at the northern Indar warpgate controls 90% of the map, nobody is anywhere near Mao, but someone from the other two empires still goes to Mao to take gens/SCU/turrets/terminals down for easy no-risk xp, even though there won't be any fighting at Mao for probably hours - it's just cheap annoyance being done for xp purposes not for base-capping purposes.

    Anyway I haven't been able to test much the past few days due to RL and outfit stuff, so I haven't had any further thoughts on the changes.

    Did test get busy at any time over the weekend or since?
  12. LonelyTerran

    I can't quite grasp the idea of making bases less defensible.
    Can someone explain this bizarre phenomenon to me?(Preferably a SOE Dev)
  13. Wrek

    To be fair forcing a cap point to always have 1 guy on it sounds good enough to stop ghost capping. durign lowpop times i've found myself being the only guy out in the field. so forcing me to stay at the base while capping it sounds fair enough since i cannot simply leave and let it cap behind me.
    2-4 sounds too excessive. wouldnt it just be simpler to use the "atleast 1 guy on point, or it reverts back to the base owner" function? Big bases such as tech plants and biolabs then? well since the new hex/lattice system allows you to go around these bases I see no problem with having them be uncappable by a lone struggler.

    Might I also add that the points themselves could use a change in mechanic. just by being near it and it changes to your faction just feels silly, was there anything wrong with the old alpha/early beta model where you hacked it like a generator?
  14. ScrapyardBob

    One of the issues with PS2 is that small bases offer many or all of the benefits of the large bases. Which means that there was very little incentive for attempting to hold onto a large plant vs a small outpost. Anything that can increase the difference and impact of gaining / losing a large base is welcome.

    Small bases can spawn just as many tanks per minute (if they have a tank console, which all the "towers" do) as a large tech plant or amp station or bio lab. That's a fundemental design flaw in my view.

    Small bases can spawn just as many infantry per minute as a large facility. Which just feels like another design flaw.

    I view the "minimum # of people" that you need to put on the points and keep them there in order to capture a large vs small outpost in the same vein. Make that a minimum of 1 person (who has to stay on point or the control point flips back to owner after 15 sec) for a small outpost, then 2 people for a medium facility and 4 for a large facility.
  15. UberBonisseur


    And this saddens me because if you remove those tank spawns and other assets, those bases become pointless.
    From this point you have two options:

    -Make those bases relevant to the Facility fights as some kind of peripheral area; impacting the outcome and acting as a "lever"
    -Force people to fight here.
  16. RobotNinja

    OMG!!!! Right? And it only takes a single player like 20-60 minutes depending on base size to cap it by themselves! I mean...how is anyone supposed to mobilize enough forces to defend a base against a single player in half an hour?!