Remove hills that are taller than the base walls ffs.

Tanks camping on the top of hills, firing away with HE give so many easy rear shots it's not even funny.

Think outside the box*.

*- The box is clearly defined by walls now. If your plan on dealing with tanks involves being within them then it's just not up to the scale of PS 2.

Right, see, that's called losing. If you cannot pull armor from that base, then you redeploy to a nearby base and rally your forces from there for a counter-attack. This is strategy 101, let me know if you need help with anything else.

The walls should be around the perimeter of the base not the spawn, and high enough that you need ESF to shoot over. Whoever designed bases for this game would be court-martialed in the real world for gross stupidity.

False, thats called defending. Why would we need a fortress, if it has to called lost instantly, and fall back to the next base to pull tanks-

If infantry is your only line of defense then you are losing, and that is working as intended.

Giant Walls = bad. Very bad. This keeps the defenders in a cage.

Neck high walls that are low enough to shoot from but high enough for excellent cover = Great!

And on the hill note; agreed. They should put the bases ON the hills. That would make a lot more sense, from a strategy standpoint.

If you're pinned down by a sizable force, you call in for reinforcements. Technically, what he describes is pretty much just that, and I can't begin to tell you the amount of times that I have seen situations where a base was being bombarded...and could have been saved if half the defending people would have spawned at the next base over to pull armor or air and flanked the enemy position. Instead, everyone camps out in the Spawn Room for reasons completely unknown to me.

High walls would be great if these walls had catwalks and platforms with open slots to shoot out from. That's their problem...they made a cage instead of a good base wall.

There's a mindset that's mystified me since I started playing PS2- the willingness of players to throw themselves headlong at an overwhelming attack force, over and over again, complaining all the while, rather than simply call it a lost cause, regroup and attack from a better position. This bizarre belief that a reduced defensive force somehow deserves to be able to fend off a superior attacking force through sheer gumption is kind of sad to see, and the people who just will not leave the spawn room until it switches factions are actively hindering efforts to retake the area. Do they really think that taking potshots from the spawn room is going to be more effective than retreating to the next base, getting in a Galaxy and dropping behind that tank line?

Exactly...

I can't begin to understand this behavior. Everyone just turtles within the spawn room and either runs out to suicide repeatedly...or tries to peek-shot through the shield. I understand half of the defending force remaining behind as a distraction...keeping the enemy focused on bombardment of the spawn room. The other half should be redeploying at the next base over, pulling vehicles and aircraft, then flanking these people into oblivion.

I've seen it done once or twice, works like a charm because no one ever expects it!

Instead...people just run into the meat grinder...over...and over...and over.

Yeah this is a very valid point, but the current set up makes sense in an immersion kind of way. The areas we are fighting over are not castles and keeps, most of them are settlements that contain buildings purposed for mining and research--this fits the early stages of the game's launch. However, as the war drags on, it makes sense to see these settlements turned into makeshift military bases with crude fortifications. For me, at least, it carries with it this kind of natural evolution occurring on Auraxis as it turns from a colony into a warzone. It would be neat if the developers kept up this kind of momentum with this kind of progression in mind, and slowly but surely refined most of these areas of conflict into bonafide military installations.

Thing is - not people even consider it. You could definitely do it. Although infils are easy to see, generally it can be done.

It's just that randoms don't squad much and have no idea what a beacon is.

In general if there is no straightforward counter its OP according to the forums logic.

There is something seriously wrong with base design when the best way to defend it is: Attack your own base rather than defending it.

Defending/attacking a base is kinda like a game of hot potato where the team caught inside the base loses.

and that changes the fact that bases are an utterly indefensible crap how? Walls do nothing, static defenses are not a factor and buy 0.00 seconds of time, defenders have 0 advantages and tons of drawbacks. Maybe it would be better to remove all buildings and put cap points in the open, suddenly it would be painfully obvious that you need a crapton force multipliers to stand a chance and people would pull heavy stuff out of necessity.

BTW isn't new Freyr capturable in approx 3 minutes? I'd swear that when VS swiftly overrun the place i was looking at something below 2:00 on the clock after they took the last point.


Edit: and about beacons and ****... tell me why people need to jump through the flaming hoops to have a shot at changing the outcome of the battle when the other side can simply park a vehicle at the hilltop and farm while picking the nose? Knowing where the best MBT parking lots are is not skill.

The porblem is that SOE made every base in the game skew towards the attackers. The DON'T want anyone to be able to defend a base. Look at the changes they made to The Crown. It's pretty much undefended now. It was the only base in the game that actually had the high ground and forced attackers to fight their way in. 99% of other bases just let attackers roll up and spawn camp with zero effort. The only exception now is Regent Rock which actually allows defenders the high ground from the top of the tower.

Most of the bases are designed so they provide more usefulness to the attacking team than the defending one.

Like when they put AT turrets on the inside of AMP stations with the sole purpose of providing something for Infiltrators to easily hack and turn on the base owners. lolwut

Don't forget the wonderful base called "Vanu Archives" which has multiple jump pads leading into the base that the enemy can camp as well as they can take the bottom cap point which gives them the teleporter WHICH LOCKS YOU INTO YOUR OWN BASE SO YOU CANNOT GET OUT. Unless you are a LA then you cannot get back down to the lower cap to retake it. You are stuck up top because the enemy owns the teleporter. What drugs was the map designer doing when he made this base? My god...

The OP makes valid points.

Base building 101: NEVER.... EVER.... give your enemy the high ground.

Not sure what it would do to gameplay if they followed that simple rule, but had they implemented it, plus "some" destructible buildings (walls... fortifications...etc..), would have been a cool mechanic.

In the meantime.. limiting the number of tanks that have this advantage (see trees...rocks...etc.. as suggested) might help a bit.

Yeah, this whole thing has been a problem since, oh yeah, launch. I thought they were trying to fix it with the Esamir update, how wrong I was.

(See sig for suggestions)


P.S. I am painfully aware that when you are losing you should pull pack and regroup, I just think it's silly that it's a viable strategy if you are winning too.

I don't think walls are the problem as such........... the problem is the few defesive points you can fire out from the top of walls, which are basically spammed with explosives constantly rendering them fairly moot in most defences.

No.

If you look at the rest of my comments, I'm simply saying that this wouldn't be as big of an issue if people were actually practicing a little intelligence. I also stated that it would be nice if we had a better verity of bases ranging from civilian to military. You have to keep in mind that some of these areas aren't military, they're research facilities and other various odds and ends... Areas that are primarily civilian facilities should be difficult to defend because you essentially have to work with what you have, defend a very insecure location.

Then, on the flip side of things, there should be heavily geared military installations that are virtual fortresses. For example, a base built into the side of a mountain. The walls you describe aren't a problem, the problem is that they are just walls...rather than a fortification geared towards defense of the installation. If these walls had catwalks and platforms with open slots to fire from...you could defend the facility more easily by being able to fire rockets from these locations at the tanks. If the slots were spread out but abundant...it would be difficult for them to bombard every hole and avoid getting return fire. This is, however, a military type wall...

I want locations that are civilian based and then others that are military based...both of which reflecting that in their design.

Basically, I'm partially agreeing with you.