Should the ANT No-deploy zone be smaller?

Discussion in 'Test Server: Discussion' started by Doom721, Jan 31, 2016.

  1. Doom721

    I got a chance to finally hop on the PTS and drive the ANT around, collecting resources and what not and noticed the huge almost 350m radius no deploy zones around bases, leaving some with massive overlap even between each other and the actual "mid field" area for deployables was pretty small. Its only bad in the really congested bases it seems.

    From what I've gathered it seems the no-deploy functions as a no-go zone for defenders placing assets inside the core of a functional base, which is great ( or else it would get cheesed and we would have walls blocking access to interior buildings )

    The thing I think is should it be a smaller radius for the sake of allowing attackers placement options on secondary/slightly farther back sunderers on actual base attacks? If it was tightened up a bit you could actually deploy a bunker, wall, or anti aircraft shield to protect your spawn.

    As far as VPs and player made bases in the middle of nowhere for the sake of VP gens I think its brilliant and works great for whats been added. I'm more curious how this can, or can't work with attackers on bases - because as it stands on Amerish these no-deploy areas don't seem to really allow any sense of proximity to a base with what you can build at all.
    • Up x 1
  2. Whiteagle

    They're probably going to fine tune the Spheres of Influence once they get the construction system down...

    I'm actually wondering if some ANT constructibles will be usable BY defenders myself.
    Turret AIs, anti-drop Laser Grids, and Bombardment Shields all would be awesome things to plug into a Base.
  3. o.Solei.o

    I honestly think that defenders will be the primary users of these. If you're steadily losing territory, slowing an enemies advance by building up and digging in would be a welcome option.

    That said, I too think the radius could do to be a lot smaller. As it stands, the individual structures themselves are already pretty intolerant of map geometry crowding their personal space. (Which is kind of a shame, as there are some brilliant choke points you could seal off with these.)
  4. Whiteagle

    Yes, but I'm more talking about using them on the Bases themselves; Like each Base will have a "Socket" or two that allows it to make use of some of the modules or shields.
    The Turret AI one for instance would be great for a Tower, Amp Station, or Tech Plant defense.

    ...Too bad the Spear Turret doesn't actually shoot at acquired ground vehicle target...

    Eh, I'd prefer them being "intolerant" of the maps geometry...
    Making them contour to slopes and such would eat up a ton of resources, and for hastily erected fortification that isn't really necessary...
    Plus the terrain clipping can be put to good use in some builds.
  5. o.Solei.o

    It is *really* sluggish about it, but once it actually wakes the Higby up and starts shootin' it WRECKS things. Trashed a sundy we were practicing with in record time while it was trying to escape.

    That's what I meant, it doesn't let anything get anywhere near close enough to clip. I found some great spots that could be completely sealed if the palisade would clip, but it insists on leaving enough room to drive a tank comfortably around each side.
  6. Whiteagle

    Wait, you actually got it to SHOOT at something?

    Eh, I've seen at least one road completely blocked by a palisade...
    And I know the Bunkers clip, but with as big of a footprint as they have that makes sense.
  7. Simbaholic

    I recently jumped on the test server and thought the exact same thing as this.

    Between the huge no-deploy zones and mountainous terrain I can probably count all the spots I could've built a base on one hand.
  8. Ven Moonwall

    I hopped on the other day and pulled an ANT from the Northwest warpgate and thought to myself, you know what! I bet there are some awesome places to put little bases in those hills around Crux mining, Shadespire, or Amerish ARX. And there was! Or at least there would have been if the warpgates no-deploy zone for the ant did not overlap and go further than the no-deploy zone for those bases.

    IMHO there is no logical reason why the warpgate no-deploy zone for the ANT goes that damn far. I mean I get that it needs to go a good distance to prevent warpgate camping with an ant base but still... what it is at is a bit excessive isnt it?