[Suggestion] Remove sunderer no-deploy zones around bases.

They are not consistent.

They nerf attackers(you have fights in the first place due to people ATTACKING).

They make gameplay & base fights boring and dull due to knowing where sunderers are going to be.



My whole point is that we should look critically at this feature and ask ourselves "Is it doing more harm then good?"

Reduced sure, outright removal nah.
Deploying sunderers on points would make dug in attackers even harder, and some bases would be hilarious to try and defend with an enemy sundie deployed on the point, just like some are now with defenders.

I disagree. Most Sunderers would get C-4'd and/or swarmed with AV before they even made it that close. And those that do manage to deploy, will just be C-4 bait for defenders. And base designs being what they are, you could probably shoot at the Sundies from the cover of your own spawnroom.

I wouldn't mind trying the game without the no-deploy zone. Could be interesting and more fun for both sides.

Reduced on some bases I can agree with but its not very many at all

Not it's not

Having the ability to deploy Sundies right smack on the cap point .. Would be doing more harm than good ..

But if both sides can do it, whats the harm?

It's more that attackers have already pushed you off the point, so now the sunderer has mostly risk free drive up to the point. Any counter attack with a sunderer now putting people right at the point would be extremely difficult.

Some mechanics would also swing way to hard as benefits for attackers. For example shields in tech plants, the vehicle bay is now a prime spot to deploy an AMS in, and the shields now protect you from defender vehicles or ranged infantry AV. Any defenders coming out of the toob from the spawn room is met with anyone spawning at the sundie. It becomes in the best interest for attackers to not overload the gens because it now defends their sunderer like it currently helps defender sundies on the ground floor. It also makes repairing those generators an active benefit for attackers.

If the attackers have pushed you off the point, then the base is already lost....

Points change hands all the time, it's not a rare occurrence.

Neither side should be able to do it ..

Because it's pretty much getting a more Tankier tank smack bang on the point .. With the added ability to spew out unlimited troops ..

Now if the Sundy had a huge Balance pass and we had a ticket / resupply system to spawning then maybe ... But as it stands now .. Pfft

Deploy zones around bases have also caused stagnation in map flow & combat for bases.

If base design is good we won't need this artificial boundery.

You do know that every offense SHOULD not be successful right ? And having a good defense = / = Stagnation ?

And I'm sure being able to Sundy ball next to every cap point / building would increase the " flow " but in the wrong way .. People should have to think both about an assault, or a defense , or Sundy placement , or Sundy protection ...

Making it so the " Best " option is just to Zerg Sundies and deploy them next to each and every cap point would dumb the game down to extremes ...

And if you think Deploy zones have cause stagnation in map flow etc ... You wait till the Construction systems makes each base have the possibility to be Fort Knox..

If both the attackers & defenders are not limited to where they can place a sunderer, then both of them no longer have a advantage.

Defenders can dig in.

Attackers can enplace.

no the advantage will go to the side that ether has superior teamwork or numbers to zerg with. in other words a group of defenders being randoms will get stomped even faster and harder by zergs. ally sundies can already deploy in the no deploy zones when they own the base.

this change would benefit attackers in being able to lock down the points completely unless the defenders had serious support.

bases should be defendable against attackers of equal numbers if the defenders are collectively more skilled and a small few bases should be hard to take with even numbers to appease both those that like even fights and those that like fighting with/against zergs.

So........... like how the games been since launch?

True .. But that's no reason to make it even easier to do ..

worse then the game was at launch. bases should not fall because the enemy sneezed on it, bases should be lost or defended based on skill with even numbers or by using numbers to overwhelm the attackers or defenders.

My argument is that it wouldn't make it easier to do, and actually make fights interesting and less cookie cutter.

So...................... better base design & smarter players?

You can disagree all you like, doesn't mean you're right. This isn't some hypothetical argument with theory crafting. The game actually existed for a long time without them. They where added to the game for a very good reason. Add in things like cloaked and shielded sunndies that didn't exist back then, and the issues would be ten times worse.