Your Opinion On The New Construction System From Dev Twitch

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Vectore, Dec 3, 2015.

  1. Vectore

    For those of you who have seen the recent dev twitch (for those who didn't, here's the video on PCGamers:, what's your opinion/comments/suggestions on the development of this system? And also do you think DBG could use this as another hype to attract abandonded/new players?

    (personally, I think this new construction system just make life on Hossin much harder with all those barricades and turrets xD)
  2. Zombo

    Where it's at now, it's a huge disappointment for me
    i thought they would re-design bases to function like in PS1 with the ANTs coming, now they will make custom made bases that will be potentially gamebreaking if set uo in certain spots, or are to weak to be usefull

    to sum it up, in PS1 it worked like this:
    Base Turrets fired automatically, needed energy, just like pulling vehicles and respawning
    A base has a big "nanite pool" which they draw the energy from, if it depletes during a siege, every base door will open and every spawntube will become unusable until someone pulls an ANT at the warpgate, charges it up with warpgate juice and drives it to the base needing energy
    this was a great way of implementing support in the game, and some people on occasion camped at the enemy warpgate during a big siege to intercept any enemy ANT to get to the enemy base
    then again, with teamwork you could load an ant into an aircraft and land at the sieged base, etc. etc.

    this all in all made bases a really tough nut to crack, and FUN to besiege, enemy vehicles still had the important role of defending the base under siege from ANTs trying to break through, while slowly making the base owners weaker and weaker

    and what do we get now with the ANT? gimmicky mini-bases that no one in their right mind would use, ever, because galaxies can fly right past those things and a zerg will still destroy a mini-base in mere seconds, why bother building one in the first place?
  3. DarkStarII

    Because it's fun.....?
    • Up x 2
  4. Demigan

    I think this would be perfect for the game. It gives it the player-designed versatility and creativity that can propel any game for years. Just look at Minecraft where with a few relatively simple tools players can build almost anything they like, and most players don't even know what the original goal of the game is... (I'm not too certain either, but there was originally something else to do with survival and finding stuff in caves from what I understand).

    This pits player against player. The creativity of one to defend something and the creativity of another to try and destroy it. This combined with the power of having anywhere from 0 to 100 players supporting you and your base.

    Ofcourse it does need a lot more checks and balances than Minecraft for instance. There will be tricks too easy to use to keep enemies out, or tricks too easy to use to destroy the base. Preferably some indirect ways to counter it would be introduced, and players can create their own counters with those rather than have a specific building piece designed against a specific attack.
  5. haldolium

    Never played PS1, but I kind of feel the same. This seems very pointless to me. Added on top of a more or less unfinished/unpolished game, without any true connection to it. Maybe it will be fun, but so far it looks very boring. The base pieces look awfully crude and I get the feeling that this mechanic ends up in a lot more clusterducks as many statics bases already provide.

    But we will see. There are just way too little concrete informations about the whole stuff out yet.
  6. haldolium

    Yeah, but unlike Minecraft or in that regard, the following wake of "survival" games with crafting systems, this doesn't even look half as interesting or aspiring. And knowing how placement is handeled in PS2, I kind of doubt the fun of it except for the inevitable exploits that will most definitively come with this system, like suddenly having an enemy turret in your own spawnroom :eek:
  7. Tiedemann

    I hope it forces players to use more of the map. Most of the battles are at the same spots every day and/or ppl are fighting from the the exact same sides (between and in bases) so I will be very happy if this can help.

    I'm not convinced it will work though cause most ppl are (lattice) sheep, so I'm afraid it's just going to be more debris along the roads :p

    Edit: That just got me thinking... we NEED tracking of death by debris when this goes live.
    • Up x 1
  8. Demigan

    PS2 has shown a ton of promise that it didn't deliver, yes. But if you simply assume it will fail anyway you will never enjoy anything in your life again. I have high hopes for this, yes it has a chance to fail and seeing that only a small group of developers is working on it and how they've only given out half of what was promised several times before, but I'm going to assume they are not going to **** it up now. If they do I can always start ranting.

    In fact, supporting them and giving us their hopes rather than creating a self-fullfilling profecy of doom will do two things: The developers will have more heart in what they are making, and humans are humans so if they feel better about what they are making they deliver better work. Secondly it will mean you focus on the positive sides of the update rather than the negative. You can find something bad if you look hard enough, and if you assume now that the system will suck you will only focus on that one point that sucks even if the system if almost flawless and fun everywhere else.
  9. Mezinov

    I am excited for this system as well, and I hope it is well implemented. I am genuinely hoping that this might result in more space between the developer created bases (basically, axing alot of small facilities) and lead to more field battles.

    My ideal implementation will be the axing of most small facilities [which they could be doing; we already know they are doing another pass on the continents], leaving several just "in the open" points as part of the lattice (as locations to spur less creative players to build bases there), and random distribution of the "resource nodes".

    My major fear is that the "resource nodes" will only spawn during alerts, or in contested hexes, and even then - only in very predictable locations and the same location every time. Basically, I am afraid they will recycle the Snowman/Pumpkin code for these resource nodes unedited and make resource gathering a high intensity activity.
    • Up x 1
  10. Savadrin

    The only thing that really concerns me is actually a game-wide issue.

    Why, for the love of god, can AA turrets not point straight up?

    It's fairly silly that an aircraft can go dead center at flight ceiling and basically rain death with impunity. This is bad enough in towers where you cannot get far enough out to even get an angle on them, but it will make player bases pointless.
  11. Shockwave44

    Yeah, while air pummels the ground bases since they have zero air cover. That's sounds like so much fun.
  12. LodeTria

    I'm far more interested in that they briefly mentioned they'd be removing some bases to facilitate these new things. There'd also be staging garages which anyone can hack and pull tanks and things from.
  13. Pelojian

    It'd be great if there were bases designed to be protected from air attack by a shield, but vulnerable to ground vehicles and bases meant to be defensible vs ground vehicles but vulnerable to air, and some underground bases immune to both, but with plenty of space underground for infantry flanking and tactics.
  14. Nepau

    My thoughts on it are very simple..

    It's promising, but only if implemented and expanded as they say they will do, but with their track record I'll have to wait and see if it actually get's expanded or becomes one of the numerous systems that never got past "phase 1".
  15. Beerbeerbeer

    I think it sounds pretty neat, at least conceptually.

    The only thing that concerns me is the time and effort to build vs how quickly they die.

    If it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to build something only to have a lib destroy it in a few seconds I think people will neglect it after the new car smell has worn off.

    Taking 30 mins to build a wall or turret then some random vehicle nukes it without having to reload and people will soon realize that the amount of effort vs what you gain is dumb and no one will build anything after a while.

    Another thing, do these structures go poof the instant a base flips? That's another factor in deciding to waste time building something.
  16. Zombo

    yeah, people will probably be all over the bases the first two weeks, until they see their real tactical value, whatever that may be then, until then, i am enjoying the new update for Elite Dangerous and land on a planet with 7x earths gravity to crash my ship :D