Remove hills that are taller than the base walls ffs.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Vaphell, Dec 22, 2013.

  1. Vaphell

    This **** gets old. Why the **** are parked mbts allowed to lob shells above the walls with zero problem, right into the hard spawn doors? I just played in Nott and quit the game because my patience for BS has run out. Not only enemy infantry is all over the place, a bunch of deployed prowlers sits right there, 200m from the base on a hill and blasts the spawnroom shooting right into the heart of a MAJOR FACILITY. I jump out to repair the turret, sitting there like ****** for 30s, praying no sniper owns me in the mean time, only to have it demolished in 5 seconds.

    And the shiny designs of Amerish bases is the same goddamned BS. Spawnroom in the deepest hole, with the ****tiest visibility possible and a dozen convenient hills overseeing the place. I already shiver in extasy visualizing all the magclimbers and prowlers there.

    And if anybody thinks new amp station is an improvement - it's not.
    Not only it's overly convoluted and makes no sense, it's also one-upping the previous whack-a-mole with the one additionally granting spawns for extra masochist pleasure for defenders. And it's not like the wall problem doesn't exist there. Few day ago I manned AA turret and suddenly saw a magrider on my level, aiming at me. I thought wtf just happened? Is there some bug that magriders fly? Nah, it's just a hill 20m away that matches the height of the defensive tower. WT-actual-F? Who put 30m tall hills right next to bases?

    TL; DR: SOE, learn to make defensible bases that make sense for a change.
    • Up x 6
  2. Furrydaus

    Problem is not the hills. Its the god damn walls mate. Take the walls out and use trees to block those who want to shoot from the hills by placing trees in the line of fire. They could even make some mini jungle in the hills so they will have problems getting up and shooting people from the hills.
    • Up x 7
  3. JesNC

    So now we have walls, which are a gameplay issue except in those instances where there are no walls, because that's a gameplay issue, too.

    So which one is it? Please elaborate with less rage & more arguments.
    • Up x 2
  4. Vaphell

    the core problem is 90% bases are situated in goddamned easily campable holes, which does not make sense, especially in case of military facilities which are supposed to guard the neighborhood, not be guarded by it. Defenders get all the disadvantages and it should be the other way around. They are stuck in a spawnroom that grants a craptastic visibility and is camped by enemy infantry at level 0, LAs at level1, snipers and tanks at level2 and air at level3. That requires 10x more awareness in full 360 horizontally and 180 vertically than what's required from attackers who can often point their weapon in 1 direction and wait ftw.

    But if there are walls, they should at least pretend they do something of value instead of making the nonsense that much more visible. MBTs shelling right in the courtyard of largest bases is a no-no. If the enemy can freely lob tank shells above the anti-tank gate, what are these walls for, exactly? In case of Zurvan there are places where people park tanks that are outside of AV turrets reach (too high)

    Even 4 story towers are not safe from this nonsense, eg Xroads tower aircraft platforms are almost always shelled by tanks parked at the top of that adjacent hill. That's a 4 story structure? What about Feldspar? It's in the deepest hole possible, having campable cliffs in pretty much all directions and a bridge above it. Pretty? Maybe, but a total ***** to defend.
    • Up x 1
  5. Furrydaus

    Yeap you should have placed that in your original post mate! :) It won't look as a complain thread ;)
  6. Vaphell

    that was a rage post and I am not ashamed of it, allergy to BS comes with the territory ;)
    And nothing would change the fact it is still a complain thread: SOE, L2defensible bases that make sense.
  7. Latrodectus

    It's weird right? It's almost like you would need your own tanks and air support to combat their combined arms approach.
    • Up x 2
  8. Larington

    Well, thing with the AA turrets is they're on the walls themselves when (If we don't want tanks shelling them) really they ought to be tucked in behind the walls somehow such as on the top of the two layer building with staircase access to the roof. Having the AA turrets on the walls (Even if it's towards the back of the walls) might give them overwatch on a large swathe of terrain but also exposes them to attacks from all those directions.

    I'm not sure if I want to advocate for change either way on this one.
  9. Sandpants


    Hills are needed.
    Trees are needed.
    Making navigation of vehicles is needed.
    Walls are not needed.

    Less height - less drifter play ground.
  10. Furrydaus

    Meh alright then. If you want it to be conplain thread, give reasons and make your post show that it has a point. Unlike your original one. Take note of it yeah? :p
  11. Vaphell

    Combined FARMS if anything.
    Ever noticed how defenders usually have no heavy stuff? Why would they? Not only their enemy is most likely steamrolling along the lattice rails with overpowering force, they have no space for their stuff and they lose in a blink of an eye with no chance to ever reach the critical mass. If they pull anything at that contested, surrounded base they are sitting ducks, pushed out in front of the firing squad and they have no place to withdraw to and maneuver, because they are focus-fired from all directions.
    If you mean pulling stuff from other places and defending by attacking the base you supposedly own from the outside, that speaks volumes about the sad state of their innate defensibility.
  12. Kristan

    During any PS1 big battle over the base, the whole yard might be like one big explosion. Too bad I can not find a screenshot displaying how badly spammed those bases were even with walls. Every single door was aimed and spammed.

    On th other side, fight over bases were inside of them, so defenders didn't give a poo about that spam... unless someone went for some fresh air or NTU ran out of nanites.
  13. Furrydaus

    You're saying that it will make drifter jump jets useless?
  14. Tenebrae Aeterna

    It's war, suck it up.

    With that said, it would be nice if we had more militaristic bases that were heavy in the defensive category. For example, a base built into the side of a mountain, more defense oriented walls that permit infantry to fire out of windows and slots on multiple levels, things more geared to the design of realistic bunker fortification outposts and the like.


    Do keep in mind that we're not always fighting over strict military bases, many of these locations are research facilities and other odds and ends rather than purely military in function.
  15. Sandpants

    Yes. Unless people consider jumping out of an ESF useful.
  16. Furrydaus

    Alright. So hills aren't the problem. Come to think of it, why don't an infil just go to the tank in the hills and place a beacon and allow people to drop pod in and c4 it. Sounds like me asking the op to learn how to play but its just my 2 cents.
  17. weebeep

    Lets flatten the whole map with no cover and drag race between bases...yay fun...
    • Up x 1
  18. Larington

    Part of the problem with defence is that people often don't realise they can press the delete key to despawn (Or use map button), select a base deeper in your territory that has the little tank icon in the list and pull a tank in relative safety. Pulling a tank on the front lines means you stand little chance of surprising the enemy (Also gives you time to get a buddy to spawn back with you and give you and your gunner time to get settled into the vehicle before attacking).
    • Up x 1
  19. Furrydaus

  20. Furrydaus

    You've got to know that some players arent smart. ;)