Hello I am presenting you the concept of pillar structure that would allow to seal small gaps between two walls. Little gap in defense line often means difference between loosing the base in few minutes or successfully deffend the base from enemy attack. IMAGE LINK: http://tinypic.com/r/vepr9l/9 Current sittuation is very frustrating for base builders, as they have to constatnly rebuild the walls just because a little gap. The pillar structure would solve this problem. When placing the pillar player would not be limited by wall collision box, similar to when a wall can be placed to a tree or a large stone. Collison of other objects like modules or large structures would apply. The main purpose would be only to seal the gaps. Please support this idea if you find it usefull. It may be a very simple addition to the base building system, that sovles lot of problems and makes many base builders happy. To Devs: Please if you know, this feature will never be implemented post it right away so that there are no fake hopes to solve this issue. This feature is suppose to solve placement difficulties with no need to implement some crazy snapping system or grid alignment. I have build almost hunderd of bases to this day, and placing walls is seriously THE one thing that is most difficult. I belive for many players, this would be a wellcome addition to the base building system. Thank you very much and have a great time PrototypeStuff
Yes good idea. I was thinking about introducing something like 'snapping' so that placing walls and such automatically attach to already placed assets so you can create a seamless defense. Pillars would work as well though, maybe a simpler solution. I also notice issues when placing structures as part of the defense line. I place Pill Boxes as part of the wall and can get them pretty tight but there is usually a gap left that can be jumped over to get in.
Snapping probably won't work, it takes too much to have it snap easily. A more elegant solution from dumping pillars in between these holes is to either allow the very edges of walls to clip one another or to allow players to access a micro-terminal on the edge of each wall, and then "fire" a short-ranged item at another wall. If within range of each other then a shield will be created between the two points.
i don't think we'll ever see walls where we can put them together without gaps under the current system, otherwise you'll end up with bases like some exploited ones that are unbreachable. the cost of having walls you could place together would no gaps would have to come at the cost of walls being invulnerable to damage when a rep module is in range (or at the very least, be damageable by vehicle weapons)
Or as alternatives: The attackers would get access to siege equipment that can be used directly, rather than the indirect siege-equipment of the OS and the other artillery thing that require you to set up a base somewhere. You want players to deploy large time-bombs that destroy a wall regardless of rep modules nearby if the defenders don't go out and disarm that thing. You want equipment to get infantry (and possibly even vehicles) into the base safely, such as a deployable gravlift a little higher than the walls that make you temporarily immune to any air-shields. PMB's should never have been "if you can protect the inside you are safe". They should have been "the base helps you, but you need to control the outside just as much as the inside". Ofcourse bases should also have been designed to be smack-dab in the middle of the fighting rather than be build as far away as possible from anything and trying to discourage anyone from attacking it. Good game design should encourage players to attack bases, and the builders to build it somewhere where people will happily try and wreck it.
Hi guys Thank you for supporting the idea. Currently from what I experienced, it is not difficult to take out an enemy base. And that is the problem. Imagine you spend 30 minutes or more building a base, and then two guys can just show up and ruin it all. Turrents are not effective very much, and can be taken out easily with main battle tanks. If anti tank turrets were as deadly to vehicles as anti air to planes or anti infantry to infantry, it would work out. But it is not the case. If you are one guy defending the base, you need to have some form of an advantage over the higher numbers of enemies attacking your base. So sealed base with no gaps between walls will make a huge difference, as only light assaults will be able to get in and fight you. The usuall scenario is, that you alone build a base and you alone defend it. The attackers usually show up in higer numbers, and if your base has gaps in defence walls, the fight is over in five minutes. I personally built bases that has no entrance at all, and still got destroyed. But at least the fight took a while, and I did not feel like my time has been wasted. It was entertaining to see the attackers struggle and try really hard to get in and take the hive out. But usually, it's two infiltrators, that just use a gap in walls and destroy one module. Before the defender notices anything hive is gone and so is the etire base.
Current wall: Too long, too clunky. Can't be placed properly on anything but even terrain because it needs to touch the ground on multiple points, making it sink into the terrain on uneven ground. Blast wall: "Come in."-doors left & right next to it (WHY !?) It would be alright if a shield module would cause the entrances to be shielded, stopping infantry but allowing them to shoot through while stopping any larger projectile (shell). What we need would just be less long walls. Something in-between blast walls and the other walls that are just one straight line and thus a simple, reliable, easy to place wall that is slightly higher than the current infantry shooting range wall. Also required are some exit points for infantry despite the desire of walling it in, as infantry should still be able to get out to attack / defend. Meanwhile bunkers should get an overhaul: Their top is merely ground to stand on, provides neither cover nor shield nor terminal nor an option to spawn a turret on top that can't be AI operated. Their inner area's terminal can't be repaired once hacked by an enemy infiltrator & destroyed afterwards because destroying the terminal doesn't restore faction identity of it so that it can be targeted for repairs. The inner area of the bunker is highly useless as there's neither a shield covering the entrance nor are the angles to shoot from from inside any bit well usable AND the model is just clunky with it's stairs - a redesign that adresses all this would be nice. Btw.: Razor wire or spikes for wall tops so that enemies can no longer sneak / run on / escape over them ? Corners are still an issue pillars would be fine for. Just the bases built in craters, on top of mountains or against terrain-walls are something that should be looked at. These, that can't be attacked any bit well. Another issue are air shields built under bridges that clip into them while they aren't visible, yet damage units above them.
I've gotten good at closing gaps from wall to wall however certain combo structures cause issues and this would fix that such as infantry tower to normal wall etc. I hope it will be included free or at least not be some 500+ cert grind to unlock such a small simple structure.
Yeah... my biggest problem with those myself... I'd rather remove those or have a wider wall. Still has it's uses but unfortunately it does make it less useful having that on it.
Yeah, make the half as long. Deeper so they can be placed into uneven territory and give each player 6 to place They are pretty much useless right now. I proposed putting a new structure in place - a spawn room. However the bunker could come with a spawn tube or the ability to put your spawn tube inside it. Plus a force field over the door so Infiltrators cannot just walk in (unless they take out the shield gen). That would go a long way to making the bunker more useful, though it is a pain to place in smaller bases.
