Silos In Towers?! WHO REQUESTED THIS?!

[Revolver]

I read the "things to come" page at planetside.com, and was cool with many things, and then I saw this:

Tower Silos: Yes, you requested it and we agree with you. Towers are getting Silos. They'll run off NTUs soon.

What the hell? I don't see any strategic advantage to it. All it does is make progression even more tedious, and slow the game flow by adding yet another thing that's necessary to accomplish. Then, it hit me:

Yes, you requested it
Yes, you requested it
Yes, you requested it
Yes, you requested it

WHO THE HELL REQUESTED THIS?! AND WHY?! :mad:

[Bigjy2]

not me i can tell ya that i think its bull shit

http://stats.planetsidegaming.com/12/388817/stats.png

[MJBuddy]

i think it's a bad idea as well...hell all this means is u can set up camp outside a tower and let the NTU waste out...

[The President]

Yeah I think its an odd idea but I guess its so that Towers dont continue to be the massive meatgrinders they are today. I guess its a good idea, it'll be interesting to see how it plays.

-The President:sniper:

[Intruder]

I didnt request it, but trying to look proactivly at it, It will make ANT drivers more needed....

That could be a plus

[Vimp]

I think the Ant runners will be pleased at the idea that they will have that much more NTUs to provide. Also it will make it so that the battle isn't always a tower battle but maybe this will encourage the base to be the primary target from now on, (after the tower silo addition).

[Stimulate]

I hate the idea.:mad:

[Seer]

I requested this. Towers shouldn't be the linchpin of the game. Bases should be the linchpin, and before this occurs towers have to have weaknesses. Until towers have weaknesses the advantage will -always- be with the attacking force, where it shouldn't naturally be. The advantage should lie with the defenders.

[The_Ham]

duh, all the people in this game that just have a blast driving their awesome ants around the world. I know everyone in my outfit just jumps whenever we have to get an ant for a base. Now there will be more opportunitied for everyone to get to join in the most thrilling aspect of the game.

[Intruder]

Originally posted by The_Ham
duh, all the people in this game that just have a blast driving their awesome ants around the world. I know everyone in my outfit just jumps whenever we have to get an ant for a base. Now there will be more opportunitied for everyone to get to join in the most thrilling aspect of the game.


I have to disagree strongly, the ANT can be one of the most thrilling, action packed, blood curdeling assingments.

I know that when I am ANT'ing the fear creaps up and the adrenalin pumps, as soon as I see that WG shield I can breathe again. then the trip back!
Just the other day I was comming back with a full ANT, and not 5 meters from the base gate I got blown up, dieing is not the be all and end all in PS, due to respawn, but when you die in an ANT, you lose the cargo, and it makes staying alive more valuable, and less Zergling.

ANT runs makes your life more valuable as opposed to the I can just respawn attitude, to the feeling of needing to stay alive.

[Onizuka]

terrible terrible idea.... and towers should have 5 min hack times either.... this is bull

[Warborn]

You have no idea how quickly tower NTU's will be depleted, nor how the changes to the game between now and then will alter things. You're sitting on the sidelines, playing backseat developer, while they're working on the project and actually seeing how the game flow is changed by doing something like giving towers NTU Silos. In short, you're bitching about it way too prematurely.

[Jaged]

Hey, it could be worse. Imagine if AMS's needed NTU. :eek:

[Entra]

Rofl! I loved the way you made your post Revolver. Dramatics. :p

In all my times playing I had never heard of anyone calling for tower ntu's myself. With tower ntu's it sounds like base seiging tactics will take a little hit. And now with spawns operating under a hack coming soon (which I'm looking forward to), defense in this game will take an advantage. I'm all for defense. However, it's just that the little squads may take a deep blow. I may be ahead of myself, but on the grand scale of things we can actually hold our continents longer.

If they'd put a tiny booster on the ant, that little bug would be more interesting to drive..

[LSnake23]

Well the Tower wont use their NTU fast like the base, since the tower doesnt have Veh Pads ;)

The 5 min hack on tower, well, camp the tubes till the hack is complete ;)

[Hife246]

Jaged.. don't give them any ideas :p

[Hunter83]

Ugh, I really dislike the idea of towers having silos. It'll slow down the game and take too much focus away from base attacking, with silos, towers are just small bases that can be easily overrun, pissing off the defenders in the process(spawn camping).

I've never once in the game heard anyone even suggest that towers having NTU silos would be good, though I have heard ppl say they're glad they don't have them.

Originally posted by Seer
I requested this. Towers shouldn't be the linchpin of the game. Bases should be the linchpin, and before this occurs towers have to have weaknesses. Until towers have weaknesses the advantage will -always- be with the attacking force, where it shouldn't naturally be. The advantage should lie with the defenders.
:huh:

How are towers the linchpin of the game?
Towers do have weaknesses, in fact, I don't see how they have a strength other then they act as a fallback spawn point. I don't exactly see them as "A central cohesive element"
And before you say that bases are just spawn points, bases have vehicles, medical terms, continental bonuses, lots of wall turrets.

Towers are a pain in the butt to defend against large groups, b/c you pretty much get beaten every time. All they have to do is camp the stairs while they hack.

I do like the idea of the 5 min timer, so if a single infiltraitor does get by u can have a chance to deal with him.

Having a tower doesn't automatically give the attackers an advantage. They only get an advantage if they have greater numbers and/or a good plan of attack.
Usually if I'm at a base and the attack is coming primarily from a nearby tower, we'll go out and secure the tower, usually easily, esp if there are more of us.

I need to stop posting when I'm tired, I rarely make sense when I am. So, if u can actually follow this post, more power to ya.

Also, will towers now count towards the daily winner's percentage?

[Ducimus]

I didn't request it, but i think its a good idea, that and the 5 min hack timer on towers.

[kidriot]

think about it. bases and towers are now run off ntu's. somehow you couldn't get an ant to the tower so now it's neutral (?).

what will be the primary means of assault? AMS.

where are AMS' parked? in the terrain.

what does that mean? an increase in terrain fighting. people will have to adapt and become wiser with the AMS'. now the AMS is the spearhead of an attack.

the primary attraction to a tower isn't the unlimited spawns. it's the ability to throw MAXes at the enemy.

I see people using AMS' more and more for flank attacks and pushes.

the end goal is always to force your enemy inside where they can't use any of their vehicles. but with the fighting amongst AMS's you'll see the fighting spread more and more.

as it is now, you can draw a line from a tower to a base and I'd bet money that's where the fighting is.

I can't wait to see this develop further. say, when both a base and a tower run out of NTU's. when you get down to it, this favors the Vanu and TR over the NC.

[Warborn]

Originally posted by kidriot
what will be the primary means of assault? AMS.

where are AMS' parked? in the terrain.

what does that mean? an increase in terrain fighting. people will have to adapt and become wiser with the AMS'. now the AMS is the spearhead of an attack.

I have a funny feeling the Liberator will make AMS's a bit less useful. You know, because the AMS is a stationary target and all.

Hunter83:
... towers are just small bases that can be easily overrun, pissing off the defenders in the process(spawn camping).

That's not true at all. The spawn in towers is right next to one of the two access points to the tower. A few more steps further and you're at the CC. Towers are far easier to defend from attacks because all attackers are forced to essentially plow through all defenders, as opposed to the defenders being spread over a large area with the attackers attacking one spot in force, taking out the spawn capabilities of the base in question without having to directly encounter all defenders.

[Midknighter]

I think the addition of Silos to towers is a good idea. At the moment Tower battles are quite preposterous in that they are far more difficult to take in numbers than bases. You end up with a situation where it's zerg vs zerg - troops pouring straight into each other. The tower battles tend to be far less interesting than a base assault and verge on tedious when you're just waiting for one side to be overwhelmed by numbers.

Endless respawning from towers also gave forces attacking facilities an advantage as they could keep respawning while the defenders had to watch their NTU level. Of course, that should be balanced up a little anyway when the patch comes in and you can still respawn when hacked.

Hopefully it's a means towards more open terrain fighting which can be great fun. People will start focusing more on trying to cut off ANTs and escorting them to their destination respectively. Instead of sitting tight in a tower, it will encourage a besieged force to press outwards so that they can set up a perimeter where an ANT can resupply the tower silo.

[HawkEye]

i think they shuold give xp for tower hacks.:D

[Crono]

Hm... Well, I don't disagree with this idea at all. First of all, it makes sense, towers use NTUs the same way as facilities, so why not put silos in? Sure, it may be annoying, but it will force players to use more startegic methods to capture and hold a tower. If they implement this, they really should make it so you get XP for tower captures, with the max amount very low, around the lines of one thousand or so.

[Mr1337Duck]

I didn't request that! And anyway, if they do this, I expect to see ANTs that can move like big wraiths. Fast, good turning, but better armor, way better armor. All it takes to score easy kills is hang out outside some sanctuary gate with a good anti-vehicle weapon and wait for the ANTs to come through. They come by and you kill them, you score a couple hundred EXP per kill, and they come right back, thinking you've probably been killed by the time they return. With towers needing silos though, is that ANTs will become about 6 times more common. Get a squad of guys with strikers and hang out at Conglommie Sanc gate and blast all of the ANTs that come through, meanwhile the NC bases are choked for energy.

I want a bloodbath outside my tower, not having to worry about how many NTUs I have left. The game shouldn't be a chore all the time. Now, if they added those changes mentioned above and made it 50 exp. per sec on refueling instead of 20, I could see my mind changing quickly. But they won't do it, so my mind is set.

[Navaron]

Originally posted by Warborn
You have no idea how quickly tower NTU's will be depleted, nor how the changes to the game between now and then will alter things. You're sitting on the sidelines, playing backseat developer, while they're working on the project and actually seeing how the game flow is changed by doing something like giving towers NTU Silos. In short, you're bitching about it way too prematurely.

Bingo

[ColdbringeR]

There is utterly no reason that towers should have an endless supply of power when bases don't. Half of the time, there's twice as many people spawning at towers as there are the bases, yet the bases run out of power when people spawn there, and the towers never do.

If you think that towers having their own power requirements is a bad idea, then you've apparently never been in a large tower battle. Let me paint a scenario...

Terrans own a base. Vanu own a tower very close to that base. They battle constantly, neither side capable of capturing their target. Oops the terrans ran out of power and cannot spawn... The Vanu continue to die and respawn at the tower with and endless supply of power. The Vanu eventually win.

Now is there any reason why a tiny tower (probably using up as much power due to respawns as the base is) should have a significant advantage such as this over an entire complex?

No.

[Madcat170]

It STOPS Zerg rushes

and is therefore very good

[Robot]

Originally posted by Madcat170
It STOPS Zerg rushes

and is therefore very good

Yeah, because there are plenty of other tactics you can utilize in planetside, like, um... err...

[beavis88]

This is going to be a Good Thing(tm). Tower spamfests are just not fun after the first 2 hours or so...

[Tryndamere]

Yeah, because there are plenty of other tactics you can utilize in planetside, like, um... err...



What, do you have an IQ of 5?

There are TONS of tactics you can use in PS. The fact that you're too idiotic to realize this is your fault, not evidence of shortcomings in the game.

Anyone who has actually been involved in a large battle will realize tower NTU's will help game play.

[Robot]

Originally posted by Tryndamere
What, do you have an IQ of 5?

There are TONS of tactics you can use in PS. The fact that you're too idiotic to realize this is your fault, not evidence of shortcomings in the game.

Anyone who has actually been involved in a large battle will realize tower NTU's will help game play.

Yeah, like rushing from the north. Or rushing from the south. Or rushing with reavers.

Sorry, but there's absolutely no room for tactics in planetside. This isn't socom where you say, "red leader, i'm working my way into the green room, over!" This is rush in, shoot the people before they shoot you, camp their spawn tubes and hack the base. Altering what door you run into or having an AMS nearby doesn't change the fact that you're always going to have to zerg rush to defeat an enemy

And I've been in several large battles. Adding silos to towers is just stupid because you can have the same effect by sending in a MAX unit to camp the spawn tubes, and you need a MAX unit to destroy a silo practically, anyways, so it's pointless

(Addenum: wait, let me clarify. yes, there are some tactics, but they mostly amount to sending in a hacker while the rest of the team distracts everyone and rushes the base. the main point is: all assaults require a copious amout of rushing, which is what towers were designed for)

[MrVulcan]

all of these changes are meant for one thing, to shift the battles away from the towers to the bases

If the tower takes power, has a 5min time limit before it can be hacked (more perminate structure now), the base gets more defences, and you can spawn at the base when it is being hacked, you get more big battles around the base where they should be.

Though I am not sure that I like the towers needing ant runs, I am sure that the devs have an idea what they are doing, and that if it dosnt work, they will change it.

[Stimulate]

Since they are adding this I hope that they make towers bigger. That 5 min hack time is going to be one pain in the ass, with those small ass tower stairs.

[Robot]

Originally posted by MrVulcan
all of these changes are meant for one thing, to shift the battles away from the towers to the bases


they're still going to happen at the towers because towers are easier to assault and require less manpower to do it. a good majority of the folks who play don't really enjoy wandering through an endless maze of hallways to capture a base so they can capture slightly different bases, whereas a tower is a simple structure that is easy to find and easy to assault and doesn't require any pre-requisites.

[Hamma]

This idea came up waaaaaaaaaay back in mid beta.

edit: shortly after they got inventory terms :p

[Bad Mojo]

Silo's at towers, good or bad, is going to mean more AMS usage. That means defending them more, having more of them, etc. It's also going to make mining chokepoints more of a problem to deal with.

In all, the overall changes are hard to just sum up in PS. Gonna wait and see how the changes really effect the game. If it really really sucks, SOE will change it, or I'll deal or I'll quit.

[Pilgrim]

I gotta say that a tower is easier to deffend then a base ATM

I have actually counted heads, as best as I could, and found that half strength force attacking from a tower can take a base. That is of course if the base deffenders do not try to sally forth.

The point is that 2 pounders, and a DC MAX with some engis behind them owned 30-50 NC attacking a tower, simply because they could. We could take one of them down, but not all of them in the tight confines of a tower.

Now don't get me wrong, more power to the TR for using good tactics, and setting up a good deffence, but this fight was dramatically more difficult then the base assault we were doing with half the numbers against significantly larger forces.

Towers should not be harder to take then bases, I am all for the NTU ussage, and STRONGLY against 5 minute timers, unless they significantly change the layout of the towers.

We'll see how it works out, I am looking forward to how these changes are going to change the game.

[1024]

Originally posted by Jaged
Hey, it could be worse. Imagine if AMS's needed NTU. :eek:

My friend jaged here points out a very pointy point.

[Kikinchikin]

i dont like it, towers are fun! 80 people fighting for control in a small cramped place!!!

as for 5 min hack time NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[NapalmEnima]

I like the idea, mostly. I'm not sure about the combination of NTUs and a hack timer, but we'll see.

With this change, I hope they also consider a change to the way NTU's can be gathered... maybe an NTU transport with a cert cost, or making ANTs available to everyone again.

Other than that, I'm Really Happy with all their proposed changes.

[MilitantB0B]

I won't have a problem with any of theese changes if they make this change as well:
With all these new challenges added to tower capture, towers ought to give base xp when capped (still working off the SOI thing of couse).
If they do that, I will be more then happy to defend that thing and fill it up on a regular basis.

[�io]

Originally posted by Revolver
Then, it hit me:



WHO THE HELL REQUESTED THIS?! AND WHY?! :mad:

:lol:

Your post immediatly made me think of this :

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20021018l.gif

:p

As for tower silos i don't know yet how it will affect the game. In theory you won't have to fill them that often since nobody can by vehicles at a tower. We'll have to wait and see.

[Airlift]

To speak to the original point, I have no idea how the sum total of a 5 minute hack timer + NTUs will do to the towers. I can't even start to speculate, because (like Warborn says) we are missing too many variables. We may see more tower seiges (which the smart people do already instead of taking the tower and choking off experience), or we may see defenders rarely lose a tower because they can keep spawning there for five minutes (or until the spawn tubes are blown).


So now that I've added absolutely nothing to the real topic, I want to say that Robot doesn't seem like a very creative thinker to me. I see a very wide variety of tactics used to take bases and towers.

I also find it odd that SOCOM was used as the example of a game with a variety of good tactical options. I haven't spent much time with this game, but it seemed to me like a knock off Red Storm shooter with weaker AI. While there is a lot of small unit tactics (or more accurately small unit tactical puzzles with little replay value), there is nothing approaching the scale of even a small assault in planetside. Why then are you looking for micro-tactics to overcome macro-tactics? How is sending red team in to work their way into green room tactically sound or even missing from planetside? Have you ever even used teamspeak?

[EarlyDawn]

Originally posted by Warborn
You have no idea how quickly tower NTU's will be depleted, nor how the changes to the game between now and then will alter things. You're sitting on the sidelines, playing backseat developer, while they're working on the project and actually seeing how the game flow is changed by doing something like giving towers NTU Silos. In short, you're bitching about it way too prematurely.

pwn3d. I agree.

[Peacemaker]

Gonna have to go with the Devs on this one. This acctualy gives defenders more tactics to go with. lets say The attackers take Tower A to attack Base A and have AMS B and C as backup. AMS B is used to takeover tower A. While AMS C Is used to hold back backup from the base. Now the defenders have 3 seperate spawn points to take out. Well how about a liberator carpet bombs the shit out of a waypoint and now AMS C is dead. Now the defenders check the map and H-O-L-Y crap the enemys only respawn source of MAX armor is down to 15%. Two mosquitos are dispatched from seperate bases and going hunting. Mosquito A finds the ANT and calls for reaver support. The reaver comes and blasts the ANT. Now the Tower runs dry. No more MAX. The other moquito may or may not find another ANT or the last AMS. Lets say it doesnt. Without the MAX support the infantry fall apart giving a galaxy enough room to hot drop an ANT INTO the seiged base. Base produces a few tanks and they go AMS hunting. Battle over defenders win! The ANT if it had been in a convoy may have made it. Alternative to this is that the ANT is in a galaxy and is shot down by one of the mosquitos. Or the ANT reaches the tower and the attackers eventualy knock out the defenders spawn tubes or the generator or something.

[Darksim]

Neutral will own 20% of a server now i bet\


NEUTRAL WINS AGAIN!

[kidriot]

our lives (spawn points) will now hang in the balance of a vehicle with -5 armor.

[Intruder]

Originally posted by Robot
Yeah, like rushing from the north. Or rushing from the south. Or rushing with reavers.

Sorry, but there's absolutely no room for tactics in planetside. This isn't socom where you say, "red leader, i'm working my way into the green room, over!" This is rush in, shoot the people before they shoot you, camp their spawn tubes and hack the base. Altering what door you run into or having an AMS nearby doesn't change the fact that you're always going to have to zerg rush to defeat an enemy

And I've been in several large battles. Adding silos to towers is just stupid because you can have the same effect by sending in a MAX unit to camp the spawn tubes, and you need a MAX unit to destroy a silo practically, anyways, so it's pointless

(Addenum: wait, let me clarify. yes, there are some tactics, but they mostly amount to sending in a hacker while the rest of the team distracts everyone and rushes the base. the main point is: all assaults require a copious amout of rushing, which is what towers were designed for)




I hate to resort to this kind of lnaguage... but your a Moron!

I run very tight squads, with tactics, I dont belive in a mindles game of running and dieing, Ask anyone who has served under me and at the end of every session I get told that they havent had more fun in PS.
We use orders such as you illustrated, though not as colourfull, everyone gets specific roles, but everyone understands that each role put together equals a common cause and hence a squad really working together.
A well formed group doesnt need endless rushing, infact a squad of 10 people can easily keep 20 rushers from succeding if you utalize each persons strengths and weaknesses, the biggest problem with tactics and PS atm, is alot of people are still new to this whole "FPS working together to suceed" alot came from FPS's which is everyman for yourself, or all rush and rush and rush.

PS will start to gather more momentum in tactics when people evolve, rushing will slowly dissaper to the dance of tactic Vs Tactic.

I was lucky and came from a backround of running and controling a unit for a common cause, and so comes naturaly in a game such as this, but Im not a "one of person", others will learn and become our commanders, there will always be grunts, either the one who doesnt listen and do whatever, (and get kicked out of the squad) and the ones who understand and value the oders they are given.

I also grunt it when I find a good Comm, both are equaly fun and rewarding though comm does take alot out of you.

Back to the original "You are a Moron!" go join the army or get a job in a workplace with more than 4 people, go and understand that in this world nothing will succeed without order and rules. Tactics and working as a Team is PS's future, it just will take some time for people to learn this new style of gameplay, as opposed to the standard FPS game.


*reviews post, oh my, did I something just snap....

[Sando138]

Silos in towers are to prevent mindless Zerging. simple. Towers under the current system, while without vehicle terminals, have the capacity to respawn soldiers, outfit them in MAX armor, and give them a full ammunition loadout. the base defenders, as someone pointed out earlier, have the disadvantage of needing to keep an eye on the NTU Percentage. Naturally, this is a problem, as towers become more vital than the bases. sure, there's no vehicle terminals, but who needs em when an endless onslaught of maxes will shut them down just as bad?

As for there being a lack of tactical options, The Zerg is highly inneffective against any group of slightly less or even numbers who are getting tactical. the Zergers rush onward, shooting. the tacticians loop around, flank them and destroy them in a suprise attack, airstrike the AMS with reavers, and maybe the liberator soon, and then it turns into a tower battle. The Base-attackers have a vehicular capability, with AMSes, Tanks, and air-support available. The Tower-defenders have two advantages: no NTU dependance, and all advantage inherent of meeting enemies on your ground (being on the defensive means you choose your tactical options before the enemy chooses them for you). the NTU silo for the tower would better the odds of Base Vs. Tower by taking the NTU non-reliance out of the picture.

[Robot]

Originally posted by Intruder
I hate to resort to this kind of lnaguage... but your a Moron!

my a moron?


Originally posted by Intruder
PS will start to gather more momentum in tactics when people evolve, rushing will slowly dissaper to the dance of tactic Vs Tactic.

not every base assault requires rushing, no. however, a large percentage of bases cannot be assaulted without rushing, which is what towers are designed to do.

re-thinking my argument, yes, tactics can win a battle, i'm a big stupid for saying they can't and should be tortured with hot pokres, but there are positions at which no matter of tactics can defeat a base, in where rushing comes in, which is why adding silos to towers is a bad thing. (it already takes practically two days to spawn there.)

and i doubt that tactics will overtake the rush anytime soon, for the simple fact that losing a base is barely a bump in the road. a minor annoyance. and in this case, towers are invaluable, because you need a cheap attack force to quickly overtake a base before re-inforcements arrive.

[Intruder]

Originally posted by Robot
my a moron?




not every base assault requires rushing, no. however, a large percentage of bases cannot be assaulted without rushing, which is what towers are designed to do.

re-thinking my argument, yes, tactics can win a battle, i'm a big stupid for saying they can't and should be tortured with hot pokres, but there are positions at which no matter of tactics can defeat a base, in where rushing comes in, which is why adding silos to towers is a bad thing. (it already takes practically two days to spawn there.)

and i doubt that tactics will overtake the rush anytime soon, for the simple fact that losing a base is barely a bump in the road. a minor annoyance. and in this case, towers are invaluable, because you need a cheap attack force to quickly overtake a base before re-inforcements arrive.


Ahh, better, yes other tactics wont take over rushing for a while, but it will happen.

True the tower change might be a bad thing initially, since most tactics rotate around it (rushing) this kind of change will promote lateral thinking, which is always a plus, and thus help the ball rolling into more thought out tactics.

[tmartinez72]

Tower Silos and 5min hack timer.

Woo.

My predition, AMS' wars. Think we see alot now?

Granted, there will be less MAXs, but the spawn timer on AMS is always 5 seconds faster than towers. With an AMS at each corner of a base, that's the real zerg there.

[SumYungGui]

who requested it? dunno.
who's all for it? ME ME ME ME ME!

it's about damn time a tower had something resembling a weakness. this better be a BIG weakness too. a tower should not only have to deal with the same NTU dependancy as a base, it should have less NTU power than a base as well.

right now it's a simple formula for taking a base. take tower, rush base, win. unless your entire empire's presence on that continent really sucks, or everyone decides to go rambo and not leave a single, solitary person defending the tower, you win. the base has no chance because eventually that base WILL run out of NTU, and your tower is still cranking out the full armed MAXes like there is no tomorrow.

[Airlift]

Believe it or not, there are a lot of squads that not only don't follow the zergs, but go so far as to specifically avoid the zergs. I know, I was shocked too.

[GamerV17]

Its completely pointless, it does no good at all except make less battles because everyone will be doing ANT runs

[RUEN]

A smart outfit will fill up their Lodestar with ANTS and hot drop them onto various bases.

[Hamma]

When I am in command of one of my outfits squads I specificly go in the opposite direction of the zerg. Eventually we often meet up.. but I have more fun defending other areas.

[�io]

I agree avoiding the zerg mass is more fun but you get a shitload less BEP though. :(

[Hamma]

BEP is not of concern to me, I dont play for XP. I play for fun :p

[�io]

Originally posted by Hamma
BEP is not of concern to me, I dont play for XP. I play for fun :p

Well from BR 9 or so i agree but when you're BR6 or less you're pretty limited in what you can do which sucks. (course i mostly play support roles so that's probably why i feel so limited)

[Hamma]

yea, when you are pretty low it can suck. I am almost BR11 now and half way to CR3 :D

[ZionsFire]

hamma....posted 3 times in a row:eek:

[Kuraltai]

Originally posted by �io
Well from BR 9 or so i agree but when you're BR6 or less you're pretty limited in what you can do which sucks. (course i mostly play support roles so that's probably why i feel so limited)

Nothing wrong with support roles ... those cowboys gotta get to the battles someway other than shoe leather express! Of course, there is the constant battle over who will make the ANT run. :D

I like to run in ... kill and be killed like the next guy, but when you're in a squad/outfit ... it becomes a team thing and I try and help the team if possible.

Like someone said earlier ... it's rush to get the ANT to and from the warp gate. Getting blown up just before you reach your destination ... or worse yet just as you reach it ... can take the wind outta yer sails. :(

[tazz]

i think that this tower silo business could really work, if it was implemented correctly.

how i think it should be done, is that everyone currently thinking that ants will be used to fill the towers. this could be one way to fill the tower.
another way is that the power in the tower slowly recharges(eg solar power). so that eventually the tower will ran out, but it will slowly recharge over a period of time.

[Hamma]

Way to bump an old thread :D

NTU in towers is the best idea to hit PS in many moons.

[Knuckles]

Ok...

The silos are coming.

Do I like it? Not sure. I like to fight (that's why I bought the game) and I've done a number of ANT runs in my time. They can be exciting, but seldom as exciting as in being in a tight fire fight.

Do I understand why they are implemented? I do. There's a severe imbalance when the bases runs of NTUs, but the towers don't.

Maybe they will put in a set max number of NTU units, that an AMS has, because that's the next thing that will be imbalancing (as long as they are not bombarded by Liberator right as they deploy :) ).

What if we could 'cushion' the blow of constant ANT runs somewhat? What if Adv Engies could put up solar panels, close to the silos (in bases as in towers)? They'd fill up the silo really slow (with or without any exp gain), but they'd be of use!

Before we judge this change as crap though, I think we should see how it plays out.

[Kaltagesta]

one good thing that will probably come out of this, and somethng i have wanted for a long time, is that u will get XP for capping a tower.

i guess.

has someone said this? sorry, i cant be bothered to go back and read it all.

[slytiger]

They should develop points out in the open terrain or in certain canyons/mountains that can be captured like the towers and bases but has alittle less xp than a base. This way it makes a great spot for vehicles to fight.

[Streamline]

I kinda think territory should be devided into like provinces which would include all bases and all towers within a certain area of control. An example might be Onatha,Shango,Pamba on Cyssor and all the towers in that area. Not to replace SOIs but in addition to them. Somehow arranging the provinces in a way to make chokepoints like bridges worthwhile to haunt/defend/deploy... I truely believe something like this would help force squads to function as a single unit in everything they do.

I actually like the tower silo idea. Mostly cuz you all hate it. :p

[tazz]

What i would also like is an
NTU Silo, in each base, so with you remaining NTU in your ant, you can put it in a silo inside the base, where it is stored, for either emergency, or so you can get NTU fast.

[Adun]

i think its stupid, but i also think that towers need guns big enough to make them more than just spawn points, actual defensive buildings. I also think all of those turrets shouldent be a big box seat with as little gun attached, i think the gun should be bigger than the seat, not the other way around. And it would be nice if there were a terminal at the top of a tower and other bases (or just interlink facilities) that let any player chat across the continent.

Those are just my thoughts.

Well, they'll eventually add those silos, and if they are really as bad as they seem, they'll probably change it back.

[slytiger]

I was thinking about how it would be nice to have a camera system in the bases and have one room as the security room. It would allow for more objectives and another room that needs to be held besides the gen and flag room.

[ZionsFire]

like in the lounge beside the spawn room

[Sandman]

You had better get exp from towers when they put this in or towers can defend themselves.

[BlakkyZ8]

I personally dont know why we get no EXP from capping towers right now. I mean Even Dave said we reward EXP for acts that place a players avatar in danger. Now I dont know how you guys feel, but capping a tower is risky at best.