Sept. 23, 2022 - PTS Update

??? This is the change that is the most devastating to construction and I have absolutely no idea why you would do this, if anything it's the one things that needs to be buffed to cover more, or allow us to place them closer. this will make the item completely useless.

Good change, I've been saying this for years even back when Drew and I would have long talks about construction. It's not fun for people to attack my base with automated turrets, which is why I try my best not to use them.

Good change, however you will need to fix the ease of use, maybe allow players to click the map and fire it from inside their base, because venturing out was already a terrible idea as you cannot press the over-shield buttons while you are gone.



My takeaways: I like the aim to make construction more defensive/base-building and more fun for attackers (by the way I only build bases and never attack so I promise I am not biased here), which is what it should have always been; however I'm not sure the pain spire change does that at all, in fact that will allow 1 infiltrator to take the whole base down while you get cortium or kill the spawn tube while you re-spawn after being knifed while building. The pain spires actually needed to be allowed to be placed closer together, we have unwritten rules/code in the construction discord/community that we don't use the building inside other objects glitch, however with this change.. we might have to start exploiting and that really makes me sad honestly, I'm going to have to start teaching builders how to put spawn tubes inside structures so they dont die to 1 infiltrator etc. and that's really lame.

~ Atley

I did some testing on the new Magrider guns. Personally, I vastly prefer the original version over the charged version. I like the infantry-piercing ability, because it's useful on groups of infantry, and I could use it to snipe an engineer repairing their ride, AND hit the ride itself. For the charged variant, I'm not a fan. Too much downtime, for something that could potentially miss 1-2 out of 3 shots, which makes it lose out on the full damage.

For anyone wondering, here's how I tested, and the results. For the TTKs, I started the timer when I clicked to fire a shot(or released in the case of the 3-round bursts tests), and stopped the timer the moment I saw a target explode. All shots aimed at the center of the front of the target(not the top-front, the front of the target), at a range of 100m for round travel distance(because shots have no damage drop off on both variants), with unmodified cannons.
NOTE: Fully charged variant does a three-round burst, I counted the hits via hit marker.

Parihelion(Charged variant, Fully-Charged)
vs. Galaxy
4 bursts(12hits), 28.39 at 100m

vs. Vanguard
3 bursts(9hits), 18.29 at 100m

vs. Prowler
3 bursts(7hits), 17.70 at 100m

vs. Lightning
2 bursts(6hits), 10.21 at 100m

vs. Sunderer
3 bursts(9hits), 19.13 at 100m

Parahelion(Charged variant, uncharged shots)
vs. Galaxy
22 shots, 52.34 at 100m

vs. Prowler
7 shots, 16.51 at 100m

vs. Vanguard
8 shots, 16.66 at 100m

vs. Sunderer
12 shots, 32.12 at 100m

vs. Lightning
6 shots, 10.69 at 100m

Parihelion(Original Version)
vs Galaxy
14 shots, 42.14 at 100m

vs. Sunderer
10 shots, 17.43 at 100m

vs. Prowler
5 shots, 10.57 at 100m

vs. Vanguard
6 shots, 15.34 at 100m

vs. Lightning
4 shots, 8.54 at 100m

so, lol. once the gsd effect goes away, deployed sundies float to the top

Perihelion (Charged)
The only criticism that I could possibly muster is that now it's just ever so slightly overworked. Bring down the individual shot re-chamber just a hair (25% at most), bring down the reload to 3.25 seconds w/o upgrades and oh me, oh my is this ever a devilishly fun little addition to the VS arsenal.

Thank you for being so receptive to feedback, myself knowing how difficult it is to deal with vitriol and negative push back from numerous members of the community.

So, I honestly don't understand the changes to the pain field tower, because it already has numerous weaknesses.
1. The placement limiter circle on the pain tower is very large, so in a compact base construction (My preferred) I could only ever fit one in the base. The others would end up placed way outside if I felt like building a satellite construction.
2. The size of the pain field is quite small, in combination with the placement limit circle, that meant gigantic gaps between two pain fields, so if an enemy couldn't sneak in one way, they could almost certainly sneak in another. I generally like to house the spawn tube & some modules inside a pillbox, with a pain field generator behind that, still I've lost count of the number of times an enemy infiltrator has run right through the pain field, into the pillbox and is now safely shooting people that spawn outside the effect of the pain field from inside the pillbox.
If I try to setup pain towers that protect the vehicle/air terms on those constructions, I'd have to be extremely careful about placement to get it to work because the size of the field was small compared to the chunky shaping of the vehicle terminal.
Think this illustrates why placing the spires is such a pain.

3. The pain field generator is very tall. Such that it is easily tank shelled over typical wall placements.
All the above had me quietly thinking that the pain field towers need to be BETTER not worse. If we'd been asked about this, I would've suggested that a good alternative would be to make the pain tower vulnerable to EMP grenades/attacks - that way a good infil can help the rest of the team out on attacking a base by EMP'ing the tower that's apparently causing grief for the confused allies near them.

Could you at least make it so the EMP tower stops a cortium bomb from activating?

Also sad to see automation is going to be culled (Though that doesn't seem to have made it in this PTS update). Not that it mattered, base attackers had already figured out that they could just move in positions that the turrets can't hit, firing back at the turrets without any threat to themselves. Or a sunderer/tank will be parked behind a construction so that the dumb AV turret is firing on its own buildings and I have to jump on it myself to stop it doing that. This of course assumes it's still alive, it's frequently destroyed without having had any positive effect on base defence aside from limiting the firing angles enemy vehicles use against the base.

Automation on the AI & AA turrets actually had some effectiveness (AI would get some kills, but players are still frequently smart enough to just not stand where the AI turret can fire at them or it'd be shelled by tanks before it could do any good. Meanwhile an automated AA turret could stop a hovering ESF from firing in under the skyshield but again it was rare this got kills, it serves more as a deterrent (like all AA, sadly)), but for the AV turret getting a kill on a harassing vehicle was extremely rare.

Overall, it's extremely dissapointing that a construction base, which takes time and effort to get built in the first place, will no longer be able to defend itself at all. I've actually grabbed the building tear down tool before now and deconstructed the whole thing just because one enemy didn't want to leave my base alone (Yes, I want to be able to step away from my base, not have it turn into a leash that demands I stay there the whole alert), and that's in current live play.
With the proposed changes, I'm not sure I will have any enthusiasm in properly building a base, because there'll definitely be multiple tanks showing up to gobble up that easy construction xp. It won't really matter if the AV turret is given a damage boost from the power up module, since any remotely competent tanker will park in an angle I can't return fire at and neutralise the fixed AV turret with ease.

Is there any plan to give or restore construction utility in the near future or to coincide with these nerfs? I can faithfully say this will deter or completely stop mates and I from constructing, short of reverting to building remote air terminal hubs.

This is probably the last straw for construction tbh. It's already incredibly underwhelming because of base building area restrictions.

I'm the one who auraxin Black market guns, and I must say they mostly suck. Secret, prototype, rare guns for unique currency shouldn't feel like underperforming, just like they do. Sessin, Muramasa, Yawara deserve to be buffed significantly.
About Stomper: this gun defenitely needs a buff in its AV and AI role, but it has a really annoying bug of projectile hitbox being GIANT and hitting every corner, every fence and every friendly but not the enemy. It's bigger than regular Tumper's, rocket launcher's, even tank's projectiles. Please, fix that.

Perihelion (Charge)
It's an awesome and unique weapon and the Lightning should have it as well.


Pain Spire (now EMP Spire)
In theory this would be a huge upgrade over the Pain Spire for both builders and attackers but right now it EXPLODES enemy explosives instead of safely disarming them.
It also still has the old "no deploy zone" for other spires, which should be removed since there is no reason for it after the change.
The radius is a bit small to properly cover a Sunderer Garage and I would like to see it changed back to the 15m radius.


The Flail
The main problem with the Flail isn't the damage, although I think a 100% HP Sundy should definitely survive a volley, which it doesn't, even after this nerf.
What makes the Flail completely broken is the ability for Infiltrators to carry targeting darts.
With cloak you can hide anywhere you want and shell all kinds of targets all day long without any risk involved, this also applies to its intended use against other construction bases.
Infiltrators should not be able to use the Flail and this small change alone would immediately make it balanced.

AI Module
This one is not on PTS yet but I just want to say that it needs to be a huge buff and not a copy-paste of the Phalanx Combat base module.
It is good that we are getting rid of automated turrets but a turret on its own is extremely weak and usually nothing more than food for tanks.
I think all turrets need a lot more HP with an active AI module and the different variants need some individual buffs:
AV: It needs more velocity, tanks always snipe them from a huge distance where you cannot fight back or dodge but they can freely move and avoid the slow shells.
AA: An AA turret with the AI module dealt less damage than a manned turret but it was always better than a human because they didn't miss, unlike humans. It either needs a big damage boost to compensate for human error and misses or it needs proximity flak detonation.
AI: Same problem as the AA turret but I would like to see it unchanged, except for the general HP buff provided by the AI module. It could use a CoF buff to have more range but I think the damage is alright.


Gate Shield Diffuser
Sundies that deployed underwater will float to the surface after the duration ends.
Also, ANTs don't have GSD (I think they never did) but it should definitely have it.
I often found myself in need of GSD on an ANT and was always disappointed to see it missing.

And if you do add the missing ability of the ANT, you could also take a look at the Javelin and add all of the missing Flash upgrades like Scout Radar, Smoke Screen, Mine Guard, Composite Armor, etc.., although the cloak should probably be removed entirely instead of being added to more vehicles.
Instead, I would like to see the Flash and Javelin get a proper rework where they are not treated as a bad in-between vehicles and infantry, they face the same logistical problems as tanks and take ages to get to the front line but they die in a single shot from most tank cannons, just like normal infantry, and these infantry can also simply kill the exposed driver.
They even TAKE SPLASH DAMAGE which is completely ridiculous for a vehicle and everyone would complain about it if the same happened to tanks and other vehicles.
You can also headshot the driver and kill them in milliseconds, the only improvement for this is the Jockey implant but the tiny increase in HP barely does anything besides wasting an extremely valuable implant slot.

As a magrider main, while I am excited by the new addition of the charge mechanic, it is immediately obvious that as it stands, the current implementation of the gun on the PTS is not feasible for a vehicle as mobile as the magrider.

With a burst of 1500 damage, paired with a saron (which is also more feasible than the halberd now as the 3 round main cannon burst means the magrider will have higher exposure), a flank on a prowler will render it destroyed in a single volley, and a vanguard in one volley and some uncharged rounds. On top of this, landing a 3 shot burst on a slower aircraft like a valk or lib is not that hard and leaves them both aflame.

Due to the mobility of the magrider, even factoring in the fact that it does not have access to stealth due to multi-directional boost, flanks (especially on chokes and maps like oshur) are extremely effective, moreso than flanks done with vanguards and prowlers. With the ability to instagib enemy mbts, the current charge mechanic would be far too easy to be abused.
The very low dps and high alpha damage is something I think could actually be kept, but some changes need to be made to the charge mechanic, some examples below as to how it could be balanced:

1. The gun currently has some audio cues that can be heard by nearby players. Make these audio cues significantly louder so enemies can tell from a greater range that they are being approached by an instant death beam. While I have not had an opportunity to test this, I am faily certain that as long as the enemy vehicle turns around to face the magrider with its frontal armour, due to the very low dps of the weapon, they should be able to have a decent chance of fighting back.
   
   
2. Give the gun some visual cues as well. The charge mechanic should illuminate the gun to make it more visible to enemy gunners so they can react. Let me remind you that two solo magriders with this cannon can kill a stationary vanguard in one volley before it even realises its in danger from half the map away since there is no bullet drop. At the very least if they are looking around they should be able to tell that they are about to be attacked by something that could kill them instantly.
   
   
3. Limit the charge duration to 5 or so seconds. Being able to hold charge indefinitely is not a good mechanic as it means the magrider can roam around mindlessly just holding the burst down to shoot at the first thing it sees. By imposing a somewhat reasonable charge limit, you reward players that are planning flanks on vehicles (which is what the charge mechanic and massive alpha lend itself to) rather than having a panick button release saving your tank.
   
   
4. Reduce or nullify the natural recharge of magburn while the gun is charged. Again, this mechanic would reward magrider pilots who are playing more tactically and planning out attacks as they must plan out when they can start charging their weapon (after they have positioned themselves correctly for whatever assault they are planning) rather than being able to roam around magburning across the map.
   
   
5. Reduce gun elevation and give it more gun depression. Look, as a magrider main I know just how painful enemy esfs are when they are chasing you, but with a three round clip and no bullet drop, any slightly damaged esf will die in one shot. This basically gives this gun prowler levels of G2A on enemy esfs that are focusing others. Limit the G2A for better Tank v Tank as more gun depression will make up for the downside of having no bullet drop.

These are just some ideas that I've heard floating around the PTS and wanted to share. With some changes like these I think that the gun in the right hands could prove to be deadly without allowing for reckless play to be too powerful.

Wrel, here is a better suggestion to what can be done with construction. Please read it. It's simple and game changing.

Construction needs less structures, more purpose.

AI Module should get completely removed from the game, same with tower turrets they should also get removed, only ground turrets should be kept .... When there are only ground turrets with no automated targeting than the Anti infantry turret can get removed and you are left with 2 types of turrets: the Auto Cannon and AT cannon.
When you are left with 2 types of ground turrets, you cannot place 3 anymore, but realistically what should be done is that they all share the same group, so you can place the turrets 3 times (essentially you'll have more guns, giving more reason for players to help defend as the tower turrets usually fall to quickly and 2 of them are useless in defending against assaults, so ultimately you only have 1 right now)....Giving the player more freedom towards what type of defense they require. And because it's a low turret, what positions need to be defended.
There you go, 2 structures removed, much simpler design and something new the construction players can test out.

Pain Spire should get removed, hideous design ... When the AI module and Pain Spire get removed then the Infiltrator should get 0 Anti tank weapons, no AT knives, no stupid crossbow and Cortium Bomb should get fully removed from the game, I have never seen it have any good use. Annoying toxic weapon.

Remove the Flail, disgusting toxic weapon, hideous design, nobody likes it....Remove it.
_____________________________________

Ok and now the purpose part.
So, you have the base with fortified buildings and turrets to guard a position....But the construction player also wants to get involved, instead of just sitting back. Here is a perfect way to start doing that. Remake the existing building called Bunker into some Command Center structure, with a shield blocking the entrance from enemy infantry and the terminal will allow you to spawn a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle), which can have controls similar to the Bastion and can fly at a certain range from this command structure, so limited range based on UAV and cannot get targeted by infantry launcher lock ons, just flak and cannons....You can have different types of UAV's to choose from, some spy drone for a squad/platoon leader which has large range, weak armaments, lets say 4 EMP missiles for support and the second UAV could be for defense, defending the construction base's position... So weak range but lots of Anti tank Missiles. Again can be only targeted by flak or cannons...

There you go, from my experience as a construction player this change would be super for both sides and also not that hard to accomplish...
Remove some items, add a AA ground turret, for Bunker add in the shield, make the terminal spawn the UAV, Bastion mechanisms could be used for the UAV controls. And there it is.
Oh and also one more thing, it should not be possible to q spot the spy UAV so it won't get instantly focused by Aircrafts, make it a bit stealth like.

Tested the new Tank guns on this most recent Test Iteration. Fantastic additions. All fit an associative style to their respective factions, and were fun to use. I understand that some, regarding the VS, dispute the value of no drop as a meaningful attribute, but my statement is just one of flavor; EM radiation not having to Arc due to gravity (I know – light is affected by the geometry of spacetime, such as gravitational lensing, but anyways). Also, the visuals and sound effects were 10/10. The VS still, perhaps due to coding limitations, can’t seem to obtain a proper Beam or even Pulse laser effect, but oh well.

Each cannon has its situations in which to excel. Sure, there will be plenty of times when you’re simply not able to craft the right angle/situation to maximize your faction’s strength, but for me, that is what gives the game character. I’ve never minded that in certain conditions, the weapon loadout I’m using is simply not equal to an opponent – it’s been that way since PS1, which I played all those years ago and kept me in the franchise all this time.

NC
On live gameplay, I can see a tension of deciding whether to use this for lobbing shells (which don’t attenuate with distance) over terrain (and hiding your tank), as the drop is significant; verses driving right up to your target giving the best chance to hit, as this is the toughest one to land shots with. Would not change this weapon.

TR
Didn’t realize one mouse click released all 4 shots (instead of one-click one-shot). Mid-range dakka, as many have pointed out. Again, wouldn’t change this either.

VS
Tried both the single-shot and the charged 3-round cannon. Prefer the new 3-round charge in this iteration. Can see, like with the NC, a certain tension with using a quick shot (which is immediate; no charge-up time, though 150 less damage than the previous Perihelion), verses waiting for a higher alpha via charge. Perhaps this felt better than the recent VS AM rifle in that you could shoot immediately.

One old player’s feedback.

I'm hope there is a larger picture to these construction changes/limitations ... because construction play in the game is already big time investment for the builders... with not much entertainment value in return.

On the other hand, it already takes just fraction of builder's effort for attackers to harass or destroy the spawn options and ruin the entire base.

So it's hard for me to comprehend planning to give more power to attackers... but hey, maybe there is bigger picture... we hope.

I am not one to believe that construction was ever a good addition to the game in its original or current state, and was personally always hoping for a system allowing outfits who tagged a base to be able to upgrade it in certain ways instead, like expanding the size by adding more buildings and defenses. With that being said I understand that some people enjoy this part of the game with in at least some respect to how it exists currently. Here are my two cents:

The pain spire was never really an issue for me as an infantry player attacking a base, especially since it's one of the easiest construction items to destroy. I do like the idea that a defending construction base requires players to defend it, so I like the idea of an EMP field over a kill field, but it seems to me it would be too weak with its current iteration, especially with how its range has been reduced. I think it should drain and suppress abilities as well and require more time to destroy, and retain its original 30m diameter if not increase it somewhat.

I do think it makes sense to remove the requirement of an AI module to use the Glaive and Flail, but I also think it was nice to be able to fight automated turrets when attacking a base. It provided an objective that required a good amount of people focusing on it in order to proceed with the attack. I do also like the idea of having the turrets be stronger with gunners in them as a result of the module, though it depends on how it is implemented, which is not stated. If it provides a flat damage or rate of fire increase, then I must object that it likely won't be a fun implementation for attackers. Perhaps something more fitting would be to reduce heat per shot and cooldown per second somewhat to allow for more uptime to defend. A suggestion I thought was interesting from another user was to keep the automation but reduce the effectiveness of the turrets while they are automated, so perhaps they could have slightly increased heat per shot and reduced cooldown per second than without the module while in AI mode.

As an infantry player I have always despised the flail, so I am very happy to see the resistance type changed and absurd power reduced significantly. A blast diameter of 40m is ridiculous, as it still is with the bastion (I did see your tweet about November; thank you). The minimum blast damage reduction is good, though I would prefer it to be 250 but with its own indicator as to where the flail is targeting, as again another user pointed out; green smoke is senseless when it already has another purpose that is meant to indicate something you should run towards rather than away from.

I generally dislike mines, grenades, and throwable C4 from a gameplay standpoint as they seem cheap to me, but if they are to exist, then these changes make sense, especially since I'm currently using the AV Grenade, which feels lackluster in comparison to its replacement options. I also started using the Stomper recently, and personally I'm not really sure it needs a max damage increase against infantry, but the minimum damage increase is good. I think shifting max damages from 200/350 to 250/300 and increasing the minimum blast damage to 100 would probably make more sense for consistency, especially since flak armor, composite armor, and other applicable passive damage reducers (all of which I disagree with) exist.

When I read the containment site changes I thought there would be a layout change to accompany the change in energy room and A point function, so to see that there wasn't one was strange, as now it makes more sense for attackers to keep the energy room active in order to reduce the routes defenders can take to B and C, and A especially. The idea of moving the A point closer to attackers is good, but this implementation doesn't make sense and needs work.

The underwater bases did need a better path for defenders, so this is good, especially with the gate shield diffuser changes allowing for more attacker spawn options.

The corsair could use some kind of ability to receive cover, but this implementation is strange to me. For a submarine, this makes sense because it's a submarine, and would be basic functionality, but the corsair is a boat, and it seems a bit strange as a concept. I think something that might be more suitable is an activatable two way shield on both starboard and port sides which block all fire including the corsair's own horizontal fire in these two directions (you could call the option "Sail Shield Projectors"). If that ends up too obstructive for friendly corsairs, an alternative you could implement is an ability that significantly increases the acceleration, top speed and turn rate of the corsair for a time, during which weapon fire is disabled, allowing the corsair to maneuver to cover quickly, also retaining the importance of keeping cover opportunity close by. This alternative could also allow for the corsair to quickly travel from one point of cover to another with this ability. Since the corsair looks more like a speedboat than a large, tanky vessel, the former would be more appropriate on a larger vessel, perhaps on some kind of main battle boat in the future.

Thank you for the PTS updates and thank you for reading and considering.

The new construction updates are mostly fine. Besides the pain spire, I found them ok.

The positive is:

- Flail got nerfed, finally, thank god.

- Automated turrets maybe gone, so that Playstation is able to merge with PC servers. If not for that, than I don't get why. Or else they just want playstation to have construction updates, tho imo playstation needs server merge. Regardless of skill lvl.

- Turrets got buffed

- Flail & glaive no longer requires module.

The negative is:

- Is you have to man a av turret & are not able to solo defend your base by other means ( not able to pull a lightning or LA av enemies).

However the pain spire stuff is Uselessssssssss. heh. EMP? " Dev Note: This softens one of the least fun parts of attacking a construction base, while retaining the defensive nature of this spire. "

I've made 1,000 bases & my pain spire only killed a few br 30's out of years of using them. HA have used Launchers to easily destroy my spires from a safe range & continue running around my base, destroying the rest of the stuff. While all 20 enemies also easily avoid the double automated AI turrets too. So no, pain spires were never even average. They were below average. Tho maybe they don't want modules easily defended against infantry.

Also if you're gonna make it EMP, which is half useless, then why make the radius ALSO smaller? if you're gonna nerf the dmg by half, make it not score any kills. For already a below average pain spire prior to the nerf, then why also nerf its range? Pain spires are so easy to destroy & even easier to avoid, they are so tall & have weak hp.

Not to mention vehicles destroying your base is the major problem, not enemy infantry anymore, so wheres the AV buff for silos, 1 turret even if you buff the turrets hp, isn't enough to solo defend against 4 enemy vehicles. That's normal.

Anyhow, the update addresses flails, so I still like this fix. Most of my bases have died from flails, more than they've died from vehicles. Infantry are the least of problem, so even if pain spire is nerfed to be garbage, I suppose I'll work with that.

P.s. AV Turrets are gonna have to be able to solo 2 lightnings for this non automation stuff to be worth it. With Anti Infantry turret also, not able to be easily destroyed by 1 enemy sniper tank.

P.s.s. That rediculous knife that does dmg to modules, needs to be erased. Some dude crouched literally stabbing my bunker till my bunker is smoking, that is lame. Dude knifed by bunker & destroyed it with a knife & now I get a weak emp spire to deal with him. & those are the type of people to attack your silo, tryhard trolls with shop items. Nerf that knife, its allowed to do dmg verse vehicles still, tho now has zero dmg to construction items. Amen.

I know this will get lost in all the Construction Drama but:

Please don't change Containment Sites this way.

A point in its current iteration functions as a perfect turning point for the base, where holding it creates both a gain for the attackers in cap time, while also unlocking defender pathways.

Without it, holding A-point will give attackers immediate control over the switch and basically keep the defender side permanently impeded.

This will turn Containment Sites from a nearly perfectly designed structure with a flanking opportunity at every zone, to a double-bottleneck-to-win situation.

Leave Containment Sites as they are. They're not impossible to cap, they just take infantry skill more than player numbers.

Really need to make the AV grenade impact for vehicles, not viable to have a bouncy nade for such high mobile targets

As someone who has the ANT as their second most used vehicle and over 800 kills with the flail on their current main (CactusCreepNSO), I do not agree with your construction changes.

The role of base defender already has the game stacked against them as is:
-Construction placement has been wonky to the point the community has had to invent odd designs like the "Dorito Base" to compensate for lack of ability to minimize gaps and make smaller bases more defendable.
-Pain spires work as a soft deterrent, forcing the enemy to either go around the field or move quickly through and appear on radar if someone invested the massive certs into the recon module.
-You cannot overlap the field or damage of the pain spires due to their placement restrictions even with the 15m range.
-The AI module is an investment like anything else to assist with base defense but it isn't flawless be design. Automated turrets generally have worse targeting than a player and can be countered with decoy grenades like spitfires.

-I reiterate that construction is a massive investment. Generally in any part of the the one with more certs should be better equipped vs stock. It must be stated that there is no entry level construction because all the core defense modules (AI, alarm, recon, repair, AA/AV tower, spires, etc) costs thousands of certs just for those.

By making those changes you are expecting players to continuously sit in their custom fort likely behind allied lines and wait for the battle to come to them which is not positive gameplay.


As for the flail.
-The flail is primarily a siege weapon against other bases.
-It can only target places in non-construction zones within 600m of itself. Meaning the areas it can be fielded are limited and the user is likely away while using it.
-Its payload has a signifigant amount of air time making it easy to spot once you know one is active in addition to a green smoke visible to everyone where it's going to land. Meaning there is ample time to move out of the way if you aren't pinned in a field battle.
-The placement restriction contends with base turrets meaning it's often located outside of base protection making it easier to disable by breaking it or the AI module powering it.

I don't use construction but I always thought it didn't make sense for constructed terminals to be hackable.
They're not like permanent base terminals that are neutral, they were built by a specific faction for that faction to use only.
Also, why is the respawn timer so long on spawn tubes? Makes no sense.
Vehicle terminals: I never spawn at construction bases because I can't tell if there is a usable vehicle spawn there. If I could see from the map I would use it.
And finally, since the no build zones around bases are so big construction is pretty much completely irrelevant.
I think the nerfs are good and will make infantry combat around bases possible.
I have tried building before but the walls are way too big, there needs to be smaller variants of walls and other stuff so you can make a small base quickly.
Placing stuff is also horrible, I would rather it snapped into place instead of strafing around.
The delay between left clicking, the animation playing and the item being placed and showing up is also way too slow, it makes it feel clunky and horrible - this applies to all objects placed with the ACE tool.