Definitely glad to see them taking base building a lot more seriously now, though I'm concerned that the effect of the base core might be a bit too powerful for how fragile and exposed it is. He talked about its vulnerability to tank sniping and ESF hornets, but he forgot the thing that would be most devastating and nigh impossible to defend against: C4 fairies dropping from the flight ceiling and blowing up the core before they render. If the core is left that vulnerable and that devastating to lose, any constructed base will be depressingly temporary. Either the core will need to be significantly hardened (immunity to small arms fire, perhaps even needing to be overloaded like a generator, and/or allowing us to completely enclose it in fortifications so the enemy can't just drop straight onto it), or the consequence of losing it will have to be made much less severe (like you just need it to build *new* structures nearby, so you'll just have a hard time replacing losses until you get a new core, and, you know, not killing everyone.) Otherwise, every single player-constructed base no matter how well-built will vaporize the second a C4 fairy glares at it.
i'll hold judgement, but i am a little worried about the base building, for example, an outfit all spamming auto turrets everywhere, or people trolling teammates by building wall after wall after wall around the vehicle terminal, blasting through them all would require more grief points than you have. but we'll see.
Yeh I do wonder about this, and it will be difficult to balance the bases strength because you also can't really know how many will be in an engagement. Imagine 20-30 tanks in a column, probably would steam roll a base in seconds.
2 things: 1) the Maginot Line was a thing in military history, and it struggled against mobile opponents. 2) non-hardcore players (aka most players) don't have good means to coordinate, so they rely on larger and more closely spaced vehicle zergs (and overpop) to address any problem. Any content that is added which boosts the power of coordinated play will be met with larger and more closely spaced zergs and more population imbalanced fights.
Should probably not have an exposed damage taking core, very easy for lancers, sarons, and gatekeepers to simply snipe them from max render distance, unless that's the point.
I'm worried about the balancing of those things. If they are too weak you'll have something like the spitfire. Getting rid of it is easy and its only dangerous if you ignore it. If they are too strong, we suddenly have some weird Tower Defense stuff going on. I can actually picture 40 MAXes running through a maze of overpowered turrets in hope to destroy the generator before they all die... If they manage a good balance its gonna be a blast I think. EDIT: Actually the core seems ******* weak. A heavy assault doesn't even need to reload to destroy it :/ Since galdrops are an often employed tactic I'd say bases are utterly useless as long as the core is as easily destroyed as in that video
Am I the only one that doesn't see a problem with this? One thing is for sure.. all those guys who get nostalgic about PS1 would have a nerdgasm over this. Couldn't blame them in this case.
how about instead of making a completely new area that is definitely not needed in the game, i don't know... fix the old stuff? 1) new "capturing" modes like capture the flag (see PS1 LLUs) 2) actual doors? that need to be destroyed by attackers or hacked by infiltrators 3) respawn tubes taking power, bases needing power and being recharged by ANTs these three changes would add to the gameplay massively, and i think are WAY easier to implement than f*cking basebuilding which will only be used to make planetside even more infantryside than it allready is or hey, how about making a few new maps? we have only four maps to play extremely repetitive on, no wonder the playerbase keeps shrinking PS1 had about double the amount of continents and vehicles, why is PS2 limited to five ground vehicles of which only ONE is faction specific? what the actual hell?
