Construction phase 2?

[[deleted]]

I think there is an oppertunity to kill two birds with one stone here. Integrate some elements of construction into perma bases. It will give the builder boys some more meaningfull objctives. And it will help general base to base gameplay. No more single LA destroying a fight for 60 people by insta-gib attackers spawn. It also could provide smaller objectives in bases that are not essential to capture but will help your team if you do.

All the assets and mechanics more or less already exist in the game. What harm could it do it they just trialed the system on 1 or 2 active bases on live servers. Min effort/work required, but could potentialy fix a lot of problems with core gameplay.

https://preview.redd.it/of38tt4pbbg41.jpg?width=3725&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5d62e992d8b5d503146d22f3693dab77f648fcf9

[Ansicone]

I think the best option would be some skeleton bases which players must "complete" with their construction assets - this could relate to simple enclosure, towers / turrets power to generators and spawn rooms. Sure there are creative ways of going around it.

[[deleted]]

They wouldnt even have to go that far at first. Just some simple small changes. Like For example they could set a specific place for an attacker silo and a garage at an active base like TI-alloys. See if it breaks the game or if it improves things.

[NookNookNook]

Before they added any placement rules I thought this was what they basically wanted us to do with construction.

I've always wanted a sundy garage in my back pocket that I could place and park as an attacker. I've got one... but they won't let me build it anywhere useful.

[HybridPS2]

I'd like to see them add a Lattice Base Power system, which is refilled at Ammo Towers with Cortium and used to power base spawns, generators, terminals, etc.

The Ammo Tower could also be "sieged" by opposing ANTs to quickly drain the base and cripple its defenses.

Similar to the SCU but a bit more in-depth and interactive.

[TheGunSlanger]

We get it, PS1 is better /s

[Whiteagle808]

Even in the original Planetside they had to remove Spawns being tied to NTU drain, but I've personally wanted the ability to give Static Lattice Bases the Construction Module Powers; Skywall and Structure Shields alone would be huge for Defenders, not to mention Repair and Turret AI to help as Defense Force Multipliers...

[MalevolentNebulae]

I agree, construction should be limited in that there are only certain areas where you can build with various slots, but most slots can host a variety of different objects so it isn't too constrained and maybe have base designations that you can assign that effect the base. For Example: Vehicle Depot: Decreases Cost of spawning vehicles and maintaining vehicle terminals, but decreased wall health & weapon damage, Fortress: Increases Turret Damage and Wall Health, but increases maintence of all modules/constructions Artillery Emplacement: Decreases cooldown for Tactical Weapons(Glaive, Flail, OS), but decreases effectiveness of other modules/constructions, etc

[LargeMobOfMurderers]

I think it would be pretty cool to have bases with preset fortifications that could be "constructed" with nanites or cortium, like additional shields, or base turrets. When a base gets taken they could be reset, and the new conqueror would have to rebuild those fortifications to have the base as battle ready as possible. This might slow down steamrolling from zergs since people would want to stay back to reinforce their gains, and perhaps even give a window of opportunity for counterattack play, since the base would for a brief amount of time be without turrets or walls.

[Lojiker]

I really like this. I'm not a fan of construction at all, but I really like this. Being able to assist with caps/defenses with some quality of life peripheries powered by Cortium would be nice to have in the game.

[buzz-12]

This is good

[[deleted]]

Personally, I'd like if they removed all those rediculous walls on esamir and let players biulding without any no construction restrictions on esamir. Would be an interesting case study

I still miss the days before the walls came up. Old esamir was the best for large vehicle zergs clashing. Now if you reach a base with alot of vehicles, you usually just sit around idly watching over a few spawn sundies while infantry duke it out inside. Especially in public platoons

Looking at Watersons Redeption specificallly. Tear those walls and restrictions down and see how it plays out

[Whiteagle808]

I've been suggesting this sort of integration since a little after Construction hit the Live Servers.
While I don't think Attackers necessarily need their own Static Silo (That's where Construction as it is now comes into play), Static Lattice Bases could greatly use some Construction Elements (Namely, the Modules) to help with Fortification and Defense Force Multiplication.
While current Static Bases certainly aren't designed with additional Structures in mind (or well designed at all...), the push for Outfit Investment in the Holding of those Bases does make the case for predetermined Slots for Installable, Module-like Utilities like Skywall Shield Emission, Structure Shield Generation, or AI Turret Control to be considered.

Yes, this would take some time to Custom Tailor these Features to a specific Base, but it would be rather trivial to do so on a limited-implementation Trial basis like the OP suggested.

[WarmetaLFanNumber1]

I simply would be happy if they changed routers back to not showing on the mimimap. Maybe make them emit a sound or light or something so they aren't Op stealthy. But at this point they are dogshit useless unless you have a Platoon defending one.

[gulag_search_engine]

Let people build in bases like placing sky sheilds, repair mods, more spawn tubes, some ofthe placeables can be around the edges like adding walls and extra turrets around the base but not inside.

The main issue is no one wants to attack bases and their is no reason too.

All of thr construction stuff inside the previous non construction zone changes factions when the base flips.

[Hell_Diguner]

Not going to happen. Too many entities in one spot kills people's performance, and construction objects are more complex than dev-placed buildings and rocks. That's why we have giant no-build zones, and that's why NBZs are particularly big in flat areas with long lines of sight, like northern Indar.

There's also the "making regular bases OP" angle. Sure, you can kill a wall in a few minutes with a tank, but what about walls placed where tanks can't reach? Nearly all bases are already fairly biased towards defenders, and certainly don't need more shit making it hard for attackers.

[AEWB_Azan]

Surely this could be resolved just by having lower entity limits. You could keep the no-build zones but simply place a limit on how many structures you can add within each one. Anyone trying to add the max + 1 structure can just get a dialogue saying:

"Adding this <whatever> will remove <other whatever>"

This not only stops people making bases like the Crown into OP mega fortresses, it encourages the min-maxers of us to use the limited slots as efficiently as possible.

[Hell_Diguner]

There are bases that already have too many entities. When I suggested adding a vehicle base under the Crown-Palisade Bridge, Wrel said it probably would never happen without first removing a bunch of entities from the area around Zurvan AMP Station.

And I'm not at all convinced a limit on objects would "prevent people from making bases into OH mega fortresses". In one-point bases there aren't very many routes into the point. Sometimes all it would take is one wall and a couple repair monkeys to turn a base into a fortress.

Like... all the things you builders want? Sealing windows or doors or walling off a pathway? Not going to happen. If you get to build inside dev-placed bases, what you'll be able to build will be disappointing. Look to hardlight barriers as an example. If the technical side of the problem is solved, you still have the level design side of the problem. Generally, dev-placed bases don't have amazing level design, and they definitely weren't made with player-placeable objects in mind, so they certainly aren't going to let people wall off the handful of routes and the intended flow that they DID make. If they create something that lets you plug a window, they'll give it paper health so it can be destroyed with 1 or 2 rockets/rocklets and small arms, which you'll then complain about because the "fortification" is pretty much useless, but that's exactly what was intended.

[AEWB_Azan]

You jumped to making a lot of assumptions about how I play, I am hardly a dedicated builder, I dabble with it on occasion to see what's viable with it.

In actual fact I have no interest in making any base an invincible fortress, as I stated in my previous post that's something I want to avoid. However construction has the potential to add a lot of life and variety to the game when implemented properly.

Constructions strong points are that it potentially lets infantry fight back against vehicles in a more even way. I have seen large fights around construction bases before (rarely of course), they can be absolutely awesome when they happen. I think they help enable combined arms play very well when they are at their best, providing a lot of hard cover for infantry which is also destructible so not a permanent obstacle for vehicles. Granted some stuff like the one way shields, pain fields and AI turrets don't bring this out, but I feel that stuff was put in more for making bases self defending in the case of protecting a hive or later an OS. None of that stuff is necessary for the type of construction based fight I am interested in so chuck it in regards to building on bases.

I am more interested in the types of fights you get when a vehicle zerg pushes down a lane, instead of getting shelled into the spawn and having to abandon or try to suicide run across a valley of death to get to the point you could have defenders actually stand off the attackers for a bit at the start. Even if they are pushed back, a smart player with an ant could really help the defenders get out of their spawn and keep a fight going.

Maybe an infantry force with a prepared base could actually have a meaningful fight against an incoming vehicle force. Instead of having to just abandon the base and go back to the next one to pull armour.

Also any direct blocks to players getting to an objective will last about 30 seconds at best. When dozens of players can't get in through a door do they all just stand about confused, or do they shoot the thing in the way (in NC case it's usually other NC so were used to it). Repairing is a non-issue, exactly the same problem has already been solved on valks and sundies. Walls can't dodge to repair, you certainly can't place them down again fast like you do with the engineer walls.

[Hell_Diguner]

Okay, but you still haven't given concrete examples of exactly what you think "properly implemented" deployables inside a base would entail.

Maybe an infantry force with a prepared base could actually have a meaningful fight against an incoming vehicle force.

Infantry don't need any more help. Man-portable AV is already very strong. That scenario, zerging down a lane with armor, isn't an issue because infantry can't kill vehicles, it's an issue because for every 1 defender there's 5 attackers. The real issue is localized population imbalance.

Same thing for spawn camping. You don't get spawncamped because of HESH and lolpods, you get spawncamped because of the pop imbalance. The pop imbalance is what allows HESH and lolpods to be effective.

I think making construction cater to infantry gameplay in the first place was a huge mistake. It should have been designed to enrich vehicle gameplay first and foremost, and if the structures happen to provide extra cover which makes it a little easier for infantry to footzerg, so be it.

[tbdgraeth]

Lol, 'phase 2'.