New Tower "Barriers"

[Pella]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBzHCFnCQAEgn9J.jpg:large

Now being an Avid pilot. I'm sure i wouldn't have any problem shooting around these.

Honestly disappointed, When will the devs listen? Looks terrible and a botch fix.

https://twitter.com/Kalyper/status/296329114846113792

https://twitter.com/Kalyper/status/296330514174984192

https://twitter.com/Kalyper/status/296330718685036545


http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20130129_51086a79379c0.jpg

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2278

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20130129_51086a82b8096.jpg

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2279

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20130129_51086a8fa1ed3.jpg

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2280

[bpostal]

It's a start.

[Scourge]

I don't understand why they didn't take a picture of the side where the spawn drop is exposed to the outside. That is literally the only part of the tower that is a problem.

[DirtyBird]

@Kalyer had 3 pics posted.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBzFwotCMAIrttv.jpg:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBzHCFnCQAEgn9J.jpg:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBzHN_eCAAARaQv.jpg:large

[Chewy]

@Kalyer had 3 pics posted.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBzFwotCMAIrttv.jpg:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBzHCFnCQAEgn9J.jpg:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBzHN_eCAAARaQv.jpg:large

Cluster fucks around those wall fro certain. If people bitched about NC MAXes in bio-lab I can't wait till NC get one of these to defend. Will say that it looks like defenders are going to have one hell of a time kicking ass. And those wall may block vehicles from shooting inside without perfect angles but Infs and LAs are going to have FUN using them for cover in attacks.

[Stanis]

Those barriers .. are just as much a liability to the defender. they have to move out of solid cover (corridor) to partial cover (barrier) to poke their nose out.

They need a new type of shield.
Stops HE/AV weaponry - allows small arms fire.


Don't think anyone was complaining about getting shot at - just the effects of HE spam.
So long as we can't fire AV from behind the shield, I'd like to seem them try that.

[Sledgecrushr]

The barriers might be that little push that makes these towers more defensable. If they arent then Im positive the devs can go further than this to fortify these positions.

[Boomzor]

Those barriers .. are just as much a liability to the defender

This

It looks decent against rocket and libby spam but I'm not too sure about some of the curtain walls.

In my experience, if there's nothing behind my target and I miss, it will just whizz right by and all I get is a round less in my ammo counter.
As oppesed to having something to detonate the HE(AT) rounds on behind or to the side of the target. It is A LOT easier to get "close enough" than having to precision strike a half figure dead on.

Maby it'll work, maby it won't.

[thegreekboy]

Its very meh. But think about it this way: would you rather SOE put in a few walls at a time until they get it just right or would you rather every tower become The Crown?

I personally think walls need slits for defenders to fire out of

[Sledgecrushr]

Its very meh. But think about it this way: would you rather SOE put in a few walls at a time until they get it just right or would you rather every tower become The Crown?

I personally think walls need slits for defenders to fire out of

Wonderful idea.

[Rockit]

SOE needs to "hit one out of the park" but instead they keep swinging for singles. They are hindered by the F2P model. Think about it, how many pissed off people would there be if they made sweeping changes and obviated the need for gear the masses purchased? We will be forever wallowing in the mire of slow and deliberate decisions because of this. I do wonder how many freeloaders actually have paid a dime in this game and is it worth it?

[Sledgecrushr]

Hit enough singles and you will win the game. Babe Ruth has the record for strikeouts and going 0-3 with this kind of money on the line might very well put soe out of business.

[ColdCheese]

they should have kept it the way it was, but instead put up a sort of tank type shiled that allows 2 way small arms fire, rocket launchers and nades, but blocks tank and aircraft rounds to prevent spawn spam. But still this looks better than before, anxious to see how it will affect gameplay, will stir things up for sure. if anything it gives spawns more places to run out and hide to flank the campers. Engineer turreteers cant be happy about that.

[Rockit]

Hit enough singles and you will win the game. Babe Ruth has the record for strikeouts and going 0-3 with this kind of money on the line might very well put soe out of business.

Yeah and I remember Babe Ruth's name. Who are these single's leaders you are referring to?

[ShadetheDruid]

Slits would be a pain in the arse. You'd get one or two people hogging all the space with like 10 waiting around unable to fire out. And anyone at the slits would be sniper bait. :p

[Rockit]

Hit enough singles and you will win the game. Babe Ruth has the record for strikeouts and going 0-3 with this kind of money on the line might very well put soe out of business.

I like this analogy though. I would pay any day to see some sluggers duking it out and alternately I wouldn't mind watching some bunters for free. End of the day I would much rather pay for a slugfest than watching a bunch of pansies dribble their way on.

[Hamma]

What is the source of these?

[Figment]

Seems to me it's a definite improvement. Aircraft that want to spam in will have to fly at a lower angle to fire into doors (thus making it more likely to be in view of AA that's indoors), while those trying to hit behind the barriers would need steeper angles, but have a harder time detecting the enemies.

The merlons should make it easier to recuperate, and particularly better to pop from behind cover with AV.

Remember the walls in PS1? We had some very large, wide merlons and no roof cover. Of course air had it relatively easy: you had an angle from above and splash damage if you were a Reaver.

However, the merlons allowed for frequent recuperation for snipers, allows medics to work and you have to worry less about being engaged from multiple sides at once.

All in all, I'm very glad to see these changes starting to appear. Exact shape and spacing might be altered in the future, but all in all, outer ring tower defense should improve a lot already.



Hopefully the flow from spawns to the various levels is revised as well.

[Rockit]

What is the source of these?

No idea but it this thread reminded me baseball season is just around the corner :lol:

[Hamma]

:lol: Yea, I don't want to post and share these out everywhere until I know their source.

[Mordicant]

Yeah and I remember Babe Ruth's name. Who are these single's leaders you are referring to?

Pete Rose, Ty Cobb, Derek Jeter, etc

[Figment]

:lol: Yea, I don't want to post and share these out everywhere until I know their source.

EDIT: nm, can't find the source. :P

[Rockit]

You guys mean Kalyper?

[Rockit]

Pete Rose, Ty Cobb, Derek Jeter, etc

Banned, all-time props, yeah he's ok. Get back on topic but yeah I don't mind baseball firing back up here soon.

[Hamma]

Got it, editing OP.

[Hamma]

Updated OP with sources and direct image links.

[UnclearAsh]

I notice there is force field up on the doors on the top floor. Will be nice not having enemies camp the teleporter and jump pad exit to the spawn.

[Pella]

Updated OP with sources and direct image links.

Cheers Hamma,

[Chewy]

SOE needs to "hit one out of the park" but instead they keep swinging for singles. They are hindered by the F2P model. Think about it, how many pissed off people would there be if they made sweeping changes and obviated the need for gear the masses purchased? We will be forever wallowing in the mire of slow and deliberate decisions because of this. I do wonder how many freeloaders actually have paid a dime in this game and is it worth it?

Wrong. A F2P game is much better suited to change than any paid one. With paid games you're buying the game as is and future patches can make shitstorms if they change what someone bought the game for. F2P games are setup where you're you didn't pay for anything in the game. You bought Station Cash, not in game items. What the SC is used on doesn't matter as it was bought with SC not money.

There are reason for buffers like SC and MS points. This is one of them.

[Figment]

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6533/onfortifyingentrances.jpg (http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6533/onfortifyingentrances.jpg)

Notice any similarities btw? (top left and right in particular) :D

[Graywolves]

Looks the same defense philosophy for most outposts.

Stuff is there, but it's not really useful.

[Beerbeer]

Well, I'm glad they're at least trying.

I'll reserve judgement until I actually attack and defend one.

[LegionnaireCole]

Those shields are a start, but what about inside the tower? They should have more of those low walls that are all over alot of the AMP stations. rather then a big empty room, make the towers and alot of the bases actually look semi defensible. Put more crates around the rooms, maybe a storage room with crates to hide in.

Also, unrelated to towers, but SoE could put more wrecked tanks around to make it look like a war had gone on, that also adds cover to the maps as well.

[Mordelicius]

I'd prefer a total redesign but these are good. It's better than no change at all.

Adios Carpetbombingside! :lol: The problem is that the tower bases don't protect players from intense splash damage. For the cheap costs of vehicles, whether it be tank or aircraft, their ability to easily pin down players at the tower is unjustifield.

- this is good against indiscriminate carpetbombings of every hole in that base.
- this is good against Magriders who climb all sorts of elevation and fire with ease from cover.
- this is good for NC with our CQC Max. I don't use Maxes but if they aren't going fix our crappy guns who shoot all over the place outside the aim, this is a welcome change.

[QuantumMechanic]

With the exception of the shield-doors added on the top level (I like that), the other areas that have been changed look like anybody trying to take cover there will STILL be vaporized by liberator / ESF / tank shells.

Explosions are wonky as it is, and often seem to go through walls. So I can forsee a lot of poor sods thinking that these new additions will be great places to hide behinBUGLAH!! ..*

[Rothnang]

I think this is going to be a pretty significant improvement against a lot of things like ESFs spamming the doors on the top floor, or HE tanks popping shells into the second floor.

It's not going to be perfect, but it shouldn't be, otherwise the attacker would have no way to crack it.

One of the funny things about this is though, the best defensive position on a tower that hasn't been completely overrun by infantry yet is on the flight pads, because you can shoot down at tanks, but if they return fire the shells do nothing to you unless they score a direct hit on your body, since there is nothing for them to blow up against behind you. In some cases fewer walls can make a place more defensible.

[NewSith]

In all fairness, it doesn't strike me as that much different from the former design, from the standpoint of being defensive.


And it looks rather ugly, no offense to Kalyper. It needs some more smooth geometry, otherwise it looks like Orkish "Waaaaagh" Banner from WH40k.

[Rothnang]

Moving the spawnroom shields to the doors on the toplevel is a huge mistake IMO, now there will be no way to actually kill Bursters on top of a tower without flipping the whole thing, since they can always just sprint for the spawn room if anyone starts hitting them.

[Figment]

@Rothnang: otoh aircraft can just fly behind the nearest object if anything starts hitting them.

I think it's a start, it is going to take a bit more or different specs, we'll need to provide feedback on how, but, you are still going to notice differences. The one thing that kinda misses on the catwalks is a little extending corner, so you can fire down at an angle that hits below the level you are on. Ps1 towers had these little corners, quite useful.

Are these going to stop all spam? No, of course not. High rof Libs will continue to spam. At least they should have a bit more challenge. Camping on top should be reduced with this change as well. Possibly we can actually get to the teleporters now - though I would suspect more proximity mines and camping to occur around those from here on as more would be able to use them.

How exactly it'll turn out is to be seen, but I suspect it'll be harder to camp, you can see what is coming before you exit the top level of the spawnroom and that is always good.

[Rothnang]

Yeaaaa, sorry, but MAXes next to impenetrable base shields is just going to be insane. That was already crazy powerful with the old spawn rooms if they had an engineer inside, it's just going to be out of control with the new spawn rooms.

[Figment]

Hey I'd prefer a room as bufferzone around the spawnshielded areas too, but they keep this isolated room strategy. :/

I don't believe MAXes in that situation to be a huge issue though. The current HE spam is a bigger issue.

[ShadetheDruid]

LAs with some C4 could clear MAXes off there nicely, surprise them from above or below and blow them up before they can retreat.

[Rothnang]

Or you could just leave the aircraft home since it's way too big of a pain in the ass to clear the skies for them, drive a Sunderer or two into the vehicle bay and infantry spam the tower until it flips.

The little awnings over the door are going to make the job of LAs who make it to the top level easier. It's not all bad, but I'm not a big fan of replacing unrendered MAXes with shielded MAXes, which right now seems what the trend will be with the new spawn rooms.

[Figment]

They're slowly learning though so at least there's progression, be it baby steps. It's probably too much to ask of them right now to completely revamp the entire outpost buildings into small bases with internal safe rooms. Unfortunately.

As for easier for LA, meh, never was hard in the first place.

[Mastachief]

It's a start.

If it was the 100m final this would be the start where you trip and faceplant the ground.

[Mietz]

I don't really see the point of people supporting this with "it's a start".

It's not, it's completely useless. It's as much a start as trying to extinguish the sun with a water pistol.

I can already see Bulldogs/HE Lightnings easily shooting over and behind the barricades, killing everyone with splash.

[Sledgecrushr]

I don't really see the point of people supporting this with "it's a start".

It's not, it's completely useless. It's as much a start as trying to extinguish the sun with a water pistol.

I can already see Bulldogs/HE Lightnings easily shooting over and behind the barricades, killing everyone with splash.

Bulldogs/HE lightnings were already spamming the top floor of these towers. But now it looks like they have to work those shots in between barricades which to me is a good thing.

[Mietz]

Bulldogs/HE lightnings were already spamming the top floor of these towers. But now it looks like they have to work those shots in between barricades which to me is a good thing.

no they don't, as long as the HE can detonate behind/above the barricade on the wall, they will kill anyone behind the barricade.

They will probably not OHK them, but they will grind them down or flush them out, which will have the same effect as not having the barricades.

The problem is this:

Obvious cover like that signifies where infantry can be found, so cover will be shelled until the infantry comes out from it.
You only moved the HE camping spot a few meters to the left/right of where it was before, it changes nothing.

Its the same effect as with AV/AA turrets on bases, they are a great idea for "defense" on paper, in practice they are coffins.
Anything that obviously draws fire (doorways, "windows", barricades, walls, turrets) is not helping defense or protects from anything.

What the barricades do is create artificial choke points for the defending infantry.

Congratulations, I now know exactly where to aim my Bulldog, thx.

Do you know what helps defense?
Doors.

[Figment]

@Mietz: depends on splash radius.

Crennels and merlons have helped protect infantry from projectiles for millennia. The angle to fire over a merlon increases the distance at which splash explodes. It doesn't quite funnel defenders, but you should remember that without walls that block sight, infantry are constantly spotted and tracked by more enemies, while they now have to guess on what side of the merlon they will appear. It makes pooling in and out of cover more effective.

We are definitely not there yet and yes more extensive roof cover and wider roofs than splash would help against splash. Either which way it is an improvement.

[Mietz]

@Mietz: depends on splash radius.

Crennels and merlons have helped protect infantry from projectiles for millennia. The angle to fire over a merlon increases the distance at which splash explodes. It doesn't quite funnel defenders, but you should remember that without walls that block sight, infantry are constantly spotted and tracked by more enemies, while they now have to guess on what side of the merlon they will appear. It makes pooling in and out of cover more effective.

We are definitely not there yet and yes more extensive roof cover and wider roofs than splash would help against splash. Either which way it is an improvement.

Yes, depends on splash radius.
If the redesign came with a splash nerf I'd rejoice, but alas it did not, making the barricades sort of a token effort.

Those barricades exist on other maps and they do absolutely nothing worth mentioning.

Also the tracking thing.
With Q being spammed by everyone in every direction, a non-enclosed space will not stop spotting the defenders. Especially with radar flashes being parked outside a sieged tower (I'm specifically talking about this tower design here, not in general).

The barricades should enclose the complete length of the terrace, with slits to shoot through for the defenders.
Whats the point of having a giant gap in the inner wall in the first place?

I guess depends on your understanding of improvement, but I don't see it as such at all.

[thegreekboy]

Doors.

Doors would be the best thing ever. Hackable by infiltrators. You would actually need to have dedicated cloakers in your outfit!

[Rat]

no they don't, as long as the HE can detonate behind/above the barricade on the wall, they will kill anyone behind the barricade.

They will probably not OHK them, but they will grind them down or flush them out, which will have the same effect as not having the barricades.

The problem is this:

Obvious cover like that signifies where infantry can be found, so cover will be shelled until the infantry comes out from it.
You only moved the HE camping spot a few meters to the left/right of where it was before, it changes nothing.

Its the same effect as with AV/AA turrets on bases, they are a great idea for "defense" on paper, in practice they are coffins.
Anything that obviously draws fire (doorways, "windows", barricades, walls, turrets) is not helping defense or protects from anything.

What the barricades do is create artificial choke points for the defending infantry.

Congratulations, I now know exactly where to aim my Bulldog, thx.

Do you know what helps defense?
Doors.

so if a door is there you wouldnt know that its a good place to aim your bulldog?

[Bocheezu]

Obvious cover.

I don't view the new stuff as cover, I view them as just simple barricades against having a tank shell go through the entire tower and camp the dropdown out of the spawn. If people want to use them as cover and get farmed, then that's their problem; at least they were able to get out of the spawn without getting a tank shell to the face.

[Bloodlet]

I'll take what I can get.

[Mietz]

so if a door is there you wouldnt know that its a good place to aim your bulldog?

Nope, as I don't see if there are enemies there.

Doors have this thing where they are opaque to my vision, while barricades (at least the ones in the screens) are open on about 200° and enemies are able to be spotted from above, left, right and behind.
There seldom will be a situation where I can't actually see the enemies running into or out of cover.

Doors (not -A- door) would make me have to guess if this is a camping spot or not, if enemies are currently there or not and, if following the PS1 design philosophy of having multiple doors (even double doors, creating something like an airlock) and exits, infantry farm would be greatly reduced.
Even better, doors would be needed to enter the facility by my -own- forces, so just spamming my HE at the door will be counter-productive and kill my own mans trying to enter.

But this is a problem of the spotting mechanic in general and bases being swiss cheese in PS2 with 1000 openings for people to be seen and shot at.

Again, I don't understand the purpose of having this large opening on floor one in the tower anyways. Its obviously there to -encourage- vehicle HE spam inside the tower, what else is it supposed to do?

If they wanted to protect the spawn from tank-spam, just completely close that huge hole. Not to mention that Tower-spawns drop you down into a confined box with one exit anyways, so WTF is the point?

Here, to be perfectly clear what I'm talking about:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/12895612/New%20folder/base.JPG

On the "Before" picture, that hole. Just put a blue AV shield on it, like at amp stations, passable only by infantry.
There, problem solved.

[Hamma]

The negativity about every change around here is starting to piss even me off.. which is quite a feat.

I hope you guys realize the more negative we are the less relevant we become.

[Pella]

At the end of the day any change from the current build is good.

But this is a tiny change.

[Phantomdestiny]

actually i think those changes are very welcome . First of all it allows the denfender to settle/ entrench behind those walls instead of having to protect the spawn room from the top level like used to. secondly with those wall we can now put a fire base for HA to destroy the lightnings/MTB (which have HE so no more HE farm if you are coordinating right) . and if you are doing you job right you can also repair quickly the AA to destroy ESF's. People need to start thinking before they get angry . Those changes are very positive . there is also changes to the spawn inside the tower which we haven't seen yet

[Loban]

The negativity about every change around here is starting to piss even me off.. which is quite a feat.

I hope you guys realize the more negative we are the less relevant we become.

Amen!

Also, what is wrong with you people? You're complaining about extra cover that the devs gave us that we don't even have to use if we don't want to. Jesus, are you never satisfied? They didn't take cover away or change cover, they ADDED NEW COVER, cover that is completely optional. I think the new walls are great for high risk/high reward players like me who like to pop our heads out of the safety of the inner walls while still having a bit of extra cover to work with to give us time to reload and plan our next shot. I find them particularly useful for us HA players that need that little extra bit of safety to reload our rockets. No, it's not 100% safe, but every fraction of a second counts for an anti-vehicle HA. Any extra cover is a good thing, it gives the enemy just a bit less sight lines to shoot at us while giving us a spot to reload and get our bearing.

[KaskaMatej]

Hm, still no cover for repairing turrets. That would be a nice addition, like some side walls or an actual roof on the turret "bridges".

[Mietz]

The negativity about every change around here is starting to piss even me off.. which is quite a feat.

I hope you guys realize the more negative we are the less relevant we become.

Hamma, without wanting to pick a fight, the negativity will only stop when the issues get addressed. Discontent needs to be voiced, loudly and repeatedly, else there will be no progress.
The tone is irrelevant and positivity will come with positive changes.

Maybe it's a clue that on every PS2 forum I frequent the feedback is pretty negative, something is up.

I mean we aren't talking about the WoW forum troll here that wants to tell us that PS2 isn't going to kill WoW or some such, people make relatively clear and structured posts with negative feedback.

What do you expect from people? Amazement at features we requested/got scrapped/talked about in beta already? People are tired. Frustration sets in and when the features then get implemented in a haphazard way, it burns even more.

My agenda here isn't to pat the devs on the back and be positive about everything.

[Phantomdestiny]

Hm, still no cover for repairing turrets. That would be a nice addition, like some side walls or an actual roof on the turret "bridges".

that's gone be harder if you don't want to restrict the movement of the turret so you would have to create a dynamic wall system which moves . Which means that you have to redo the all the platform by making it rotatable

[MrBloodworth]

Looks good to me, lets see how it works out.

[Canaris]

I won't view these tower changes as a negative until we at least try them out in game as they don't have to my mind some of the glaring problems that might arise from the spawn room changes that are in bound.

I actually like the look of the new merlons and door awnings and can see them being of a benefit to tower defense rather than a draw back.

[KaskaMatej]

that's gone be harder if you don't want to restrict the movement of the turret so you would have to create a dynamic wall system which moves . Which means that you have to redo the all the platform by making it rotatable

It could be, but those side railing that are already there and are few centimetres tall could be taller. I'm not saying to cover whole person while standing but enough for someone to crouch and not get shot from someone below him.

Those things wouldn't restrict turrets too much because Phalanx AT can only rotate for a bit more than 180° and Phalanx AA usually have other obstructions if you do a whole circle on your base.

Roof would be too much though, I agree. It's just an idea.

[Phantomdestiny]

It could be, but those side railing that are already there and are few centimetres tall could be taller. I'm not saying to cover whole person while standing but enough for someone to crouch and not get shot from someone below him.

Those things wouldn't restrict turrets too much because Phalanx AT can only rotate for a bit more than 180° and Phalanx AA usually have other obstructions if you do a whole circle on your base.

Roof would be too much though, I agree. It's just an idea.

yeah :) i was just doing the devils advocate i believe that it would be nice to have a repairing protection instead of having a damocles sword on top of you at all time while repairing

[wasdie]

I'll reserve judgment until I attack and defend.

I don't believe in having walls where the defenders can shoot out of and are totally protected. It should be all or nothing. Nothing is more frustrating than getting shot at by something you cannot defend against.

I hate it in video games when a defender can shoot over cover and all you see are their head while they see your entire body. It's not fun, it's frustrating.

The ideas that most people in this thread have for defenses are nothing more than adding frustration, not fun. There were no walls with holes you could shoot through at unprotected targets in Planetside 1. There, just like here, it's an all-or-nothing approach because giving the defenders tons of cover and leaving the attackers with nothing is just frustrating for the attackers.

I understand making bases and towers more defendable, but making them annoying to attack is not an improvement. Just like when they moved the shield gens of tech plants out of the main facility because constantly pushing the back door choke point wasn't fun, it was a boring grind and wasn't even worth an attacker's time. We don't want that but the suggestions in this thread are pretty much turning most bases into ridiculous uphill struggles that aren't even worth the attackers time.

It's clear with these designs that the PS2 dev team realizes this and is trying to find that balance where it's both dependable but yet fun. Currently it's not that fun because it's so easy to camp. Since it's easy to camp, it's boring to attack or defend. Removing the ability to camp should increase the ability to defend without making it frustrating for attackers. Hopefully these changes make the game flow better by giving the bases more defenses without adding unnecessary frustrations.

[Qwan]

I dont know I have to agree with Canaris on this one, I just have to try them out. But when I look at it from a engineer perspective, they make sence, If my faction was getting mowed down by air as we defended a base, because we didnt have barriers up, I would add them, Its simple logic. I mean the object is to give players a chance to leave the spawn room get out on the rafters and defend there base, not die as you drop down from the spawn room. When players run out on those platforms to fire rockets at air there out in the open, especially when they reload, now they have something to hide behind as they reload (which takes a hell of a long time :) ). But like I said ill be back online this friday, hopefully when im done with this paper and well see how it works out. But in BF3 the barriers worked fine. . . . . Sorry wrong thread again. :D

[Shamrock]

It a change in the right direction, I cant count the number of decent tower fights I was enjoying that were brought to an end by HE tank spam.

[Sledgecrushr]

Hamma, without wanting to pick a fight, the negativity will only stop when the issues get addressed. Discontent needs to be voiced, loudly and repeatedly, else there will be no progress.
The tone is irrelevant and positivity will come with positive changes.

Maybe it's a clue that on every PS2 forum I frequent the feedback is pretty negative, something is up.

I mean we aren't talking about the WoW forum troll here that wants to tell us that PS2 isn't going to kill WoW or some such, people make relatively clear and structured posts with negative feedback.

What do you expect from people? Amazement at features we requested/got scrapped/talked about in beta already? People are tired. Frustration sets in and when the features then get implemented in a haphazard way, it burns even more.

My agenda here isn't to pat the devs on the back and be positive about everything.

Theres always going to be issues with a game this size. At this rate you are going to be one unhappy boy for a very long time.

[Assist]

Glad they made a change, won't stop HE/Liberators from camping towers.

[Badjuju]

I really don't understand why they don't give them walls. Why does every structure have to look like half built buildings, welcoming to HE spam while limiting infantry vs infantry combat to a minimum.

[Badjuju]

The negativity about every change around here is starting to piss even me off.. which is quite a feat.

I hope you guys realize the more negative we are the less relevant we become.

I have been very welcoming to most changes, this one however is not at all what people are asking for so I can understand the negativity completely.

Towers feel next to worthless at this point, no different than small outposts. They have the potential to be important defensive positions and the source of great infantry combat, however currently they simply need to be surrounded by tanks and they fall.

The community has made it very clear that we wan't walls on towers. Buildings in general in PS2 are loaded with gaping holes. The community hates it, and they have stated over and over they want a change.

The change to the spawn rooms look great. The tunnels are a good start but i would much rather see much more to primary structure so there is actually a base fight. This however will likely do little to solve the issue. I loved tower fights in PS1 and they felt significant. Currently they are no more than infantry farms. I was very excited to click the link, but was instantly disappointed.

[JesNC]

The tone is irrelevant...

That assumption is just wrong. This forum community praised itself for its 'constructive criticism' not too long ago. Now it has come to the point where people arguing that they actually have fun in the game (an alienating concept, I know...) get shouted down and insulted.
Discussion is imperative and should be kept as civil as possible, so we - as a community - can forward the outcome to the Dev team. Forum rage is just going to be ignored.

Most of us are emotionally attached to the PS franchise, and at times it may be ok to lose your temper, but IMO it's going too far atm.


OT:

These look like great changes to tower defensibility, and while it's still going to be possible to lock a tower down it seems to give defenders some more options to fight back. Can wait to test it out.

[Loban]

I really don't understand why they don't give them walls. Why does every structure have to look like half built buildings, welcoming to HE spam while limiting infantry vs infantry combat to a minimum.

I mostly agree. I think you should have to use vehicles to fight your way to the walls of a building, but once inside it should be pure infantry combat.

[NewSith]

The negativity about every change around here is starting to piss even me off.. which is quite a feat.

I hope you guys realize the more negative we are the less relevant we become.

It's not negativity, Hamma, it's more of a negative feedback.

This "shield that promotes AA MAX defense" is an example. I'm usually on the recieving side of the Liberator camp, but I tell you what I see. Instead of being a benefit to defenders, it is going to be a benefit to attackers. Why? Because now instead of going out onto the pads AA MAXes will run for cover of that shield all the time, if not just stand there and shoot, while Liberators will be firing freely while staying out of the MAXes LoS (blocked by the door frame).



And it is all because it seems to be the easiest way to solve the problem. Even if what they just want to be slowly adding more useful stuff step-by-step, I assure you it's bad. How so?
1. With small changes to each and every thing, the "changes" pool becomes overexceedingly large. So in the end, you forget to do the proper stuff, because your mind is occupied with too many tasks. Such as - sometimes when you're busy doing something and you want to learn what time it is, you check your watch, put it away and then realise that you actually forgot to check the time. I bet it happened to most of us.
2. The simplier the matter is - the larger "steps" you can make. For example - Defensible Designs is a concept only affecting two aspects - Tactical Defensive Capabilities and Tactical Offensive Capabilities. But when it comes to weapon balance, for example, it is completely different, that's why everyone was so mad at the "testing extremes" thing in beta. Starting with the game being a combined arms warfare, ending with devs wanting to have several types of weaponry of a same niche.

[Mietz]

Theres always going to be issues with a game this size. At this rate you are going to be one unhappy boy for a very long time.

Please don't strawman me, theres a lot of things I -can- (and will be) happy about. This is not one of theses things.


That assumption is just wrong. This forum community praised itself for its 'constructive criticism' not too long ago. Now it has come to the point where people arguing that they actually have fun in the game (an alienating concept, I know...) get shouted down and insulted.
Discussion is imperative and should be kept as civil as possible, so we - as a community - can forward the outcome to the Dev team. Forum rage is just going to be ignored.

Most of us are emotionally attached to the PS franchise, and at times it may be ok to lose your temper, but IMO it's going too far atm.


OT:

These look like great changes to tower defensibility, and while it's still going to be possible to lock a tower down it seems to give defenders some more options to fight back. Can wait to test it out.

The premise is this:
An argument is an argument, it doesn't matter one bit if its full of "fucks" and "cunts".

Judge the argument not the delivery or the messenger.
I find that fair.

Practicality is a different issue and not my argument in the is-ought remark I made there.

[Assist]

The negativity about every change around here is starting to piss even me off.. which is quite a feat.

I hope you guys realize the more negative we are the less relevant we become.

I've tried to stay mostly positive. I like that they're changing things. As someone else said, this isn't at all what people were asking for. I think their bases are just not designed with defense in mind. It seems that almost all the bases, with the exception of Bio Labs, are designed to be a neutral fight between the offense and defense. Which isn't what they should be, they should be always in favor of the defense. Adding a turret or two to the base doesn't make it more defensive, adding offensive weapons doesn't create defensive bonuses. The best defense a base has right now, besides Bio Labs, is their physical location.

The structures themselves are just not setup for defense, and adding a wall or two doesn't solve that problem. When I'm shooting at people on a tower, I don't aim at that person, so putting a wall in front of that person doesn't help them. I shoot at the wall behind that person and use the splash damage from the ridiculous amount of explosives in the game to kill those infantry. If you want to make the towers more defensive in this matter, they should have made each level much larger/wider to the point that when I shoot my HE weapon at the wall behind them, they're no longer are in the splash damage range. As it is right now, I can shoot at any where on the face of the upper floor of a tower and the splash is large enough to hit anyone on that side of the tower. Putting a few walls in the way, so I can't hit the defenders directly, doesn't change the strategy at all in taking the tower bases.

I've said this before, and I don't know why they aren't doing it, but the best thing they can do for all bases to make them more defensive is add multiple spawn locations. Almost every base has multiple buildings and I'd guess 90% of them have buildings that are completely unused, would it really be so hard to put more spawn rooms at bases? It makes spawn camping hard, defending easier, and would create the sense of a constant battle for a base rather than the current state of reaching the pinnacle of a fight and then it's suddenly over.

[NewSith]

As someone else said, this isn't at all what people were asking for.

Not true. We've got exactly what we asked for.


Better defensibility against tank spam. And trust me these new towers WILL work wonders against tanks. But only tanks. Not grenades, nor Liberators, nor snipers.

You see that's the problem with the community I keep trying to raise. Somebody says, - "Towers are UP, too many tanks? need defense". Then 1000 maggots say, "YUP TRU DAT IDD, DOITNAOW!" And all the constructive replies get lost among 10 other pseudo-constructive replies, where people, that got their mind set by the first guy to post, repeat - "true tanks HE rounds, yeah", not even thinking that what seems obvious to them, doesn't seem as obvious to devs (that got their hands full with tons of similar stuff).


TL;DR We don't chew it for devs, while we should know to do that by now.

[Badjuju]

Not true. We've got exactly what we asked for.


Better defensibility against tank spam. And trust me these new towers WILL work wonders against tanks. But only tanks. Not grenades, nor Liberators, nor snipers.

You see that's the problem with the community I keep trying to raise. Somebody says, - "Towers are UP, too many tanks? need defense". Then 1000 maggots say, "YUP TRU DAT IDD, DOITNAOW!" And all the constructive replies get lost among 10 other pseudo-constructive replies, where people, that got their mind set by the first guy to post, repeat - "true tanks HE rounds, yeah", not even thinking that what seems obvious to them, doesn't seem as obvious to devs (that got their hands full with tons of similar stuff).


TL;DR We don't chew it for devs, while we should know to do that by now.
I still think tanks will be an issue. You can still shoot right into the center of the tower. Combine that with HE rounds and not much has changed. There will be less shells making it into the tower, but still i believe the point of a defensive structure should be to defend infantry from vehicles. We will still be running around the towers hoping a HE round does pop you as you make your way around. Many of us have expressed we want walls, which I think are very necessary. I still don't get it, why would a defensive structure be missing walls?

*clarification: Referring to the actual tower's walls, not looking to have walls surround them.

[Assist]

Not true. We've got exactly what we asked for.


Better defensibility against tank spam. And trust me these new towers WILL work wonders against tanks. But only tanks. Not grenades, nor Liberators, nor snipers.


I just disagree I guess, I don't think it will stop any HE tanks from camping towers. It sure won't stop me, a couple walls won't stop splash damage, which is the problem with defending towers.

[Grognard]

Now being an Avid pilot. I'm sure i wouldn't have any problem shooting around these.


Theres going to be some very happy light assault troopers after this change, too...

[Hamma]

Hamma, without wanting to pick a fight, the negativity will only stop when the issues get addressed.

That's doubtful :lol:

[Figment]

@Mietz: regarding the new main walls: yes the lack of balustrade is silly. And yes HE blast radius might need another adjustment and it might be a good idea to reduce the impact of screenshake from explosions if they are continuously present. (Might is an understatement perhaps)

But regarding the tower, it does have a balustrade. What bothers me there is that the balustrade that now acts as a crennel has openings that allows splash to pass through by hitting an edge.

But, it is a merlon and crennel system. Not perfect, but at least they are willing to see what they can do. I wish they would revise much more extensively and intensively. But the problem they currently face is resource priorities for the art team: they have continents to finish.

That is a big dillemma. We want intercontinental gaming, yet we want good continents too. They don't have the resources to do both at once. :/


I at least will welcome the changes and hope to encourage them to make more and keep providing feedback. Newsith made some good points about max psychology. It is one of the reasons why I'm not a big fan of outdoor aimed shields but keep talking about "buffer zones", the new mini-spawnroom will feature that psychology a lot, for all infantry units.


That too does have improvements, that too takes small steps, but that is due to them sticking with the modular outpost design philosophy.


If you want this changed, we should focus on that philosophy. Meanwhile, I'm happy they created several of the art design elements needed to make proper spawn buildings. Next is layout, IMO.

[GLaDOS]

This looks nice, definitely for a start. Something I've noticed in a lot of tower fights, though, is that the fight for the inside of the tower is often just for fun. By that point, the attackers have the two outer points, and are usually winning the tug-of-war battle. I'm not sure exactly how that could be fixed, though. There's no place in the tower where one of the outside points could be moved. Another floor could be added, I guess, but that requires a lot of work from the devs, most likely. Does anyone have an idea for something easier to do?

Ideally, the attackers would only be able to take the tower without pushing inside if they had the territory mostly surrounded. That would prevent half an empire holing up in a tower and losing the rest of their territory, but would let tower fights on the front lines be a lot more fun (capturing influence for the zerg fight at the tower could be a nice objective for smaller outfits as well).

[Sifer2]

This looks nice, definitely for a start. Something I've noticed in a lot of tower fights, though, is that the fight for the inside of the tower is often just for fun. By that point, the attackers have the two outer points, and are usually winning the tug-of-war battle. I'm not sure exactly how that could be fixed, though. There's no place in the tower where one of the outside points could be moved. Another floor could be added, I guess, but that requires a lot of work from the devs, most likely. Does anyone have an idea for something easier to do?

Ideally, the attackers would only be able to take the tower without pushing inside if they had the territory mostly surrounded. That would prevent half an empire holing up in a tower and losing the rest of their territory, but would let tower fights on the front lines be a lot more fun (capturing influence for the zerg fight at the tower could be a nice objective for smaller outfits as well).



Well the thing is I don't think the developers want every outpost/tower to be the Alamo. If the enemy has you surrounded, and has taken all the land outside the tower an your unable to get it back then you should lose. Their is a fine line between making stuff defensible, and just creating nice places to camp an farm xp. Tech Plant got nerfed for that reason since everyone went there to farm until the client could not keep up, and no one would render outside of 5m. And the Crown proves every day how something being easy to defend creates that effect.

And the territory influence stuff is annoying. People don't like to lose the fight where they are because an Infiltrator ninja capped an outpost nearby. It's my opinion a properly defended tower is already pretty hard to take since you can spawn every vehicle right at it.

[Figment]

Sifer, the tech plant was the only thing that could be defended, not just because there were so few entrances that the thing was overdefensible, because every side's in-out flow of battle was poor.

Defenders could not break out. Attackers could not break in. Since everything else cannot be defended, it is only natural many people would fall back to a tech, attackers flood the CY due to that defensibility being poor and then automatically ended up with a farm.

Which doesn't help anyone either. More decent defense, more direction, that is what we need.

[MrBloodworth]

Here is a test. If I am not being negative about a change, then they are on the right track.

[nurizeko]

It's a start.

My thoughts exactly. Not condoning how poorly rushed the game was, but any cover is better than none. I'd rather they just close the second floor with a wall and one shield protected door. Vehicles should have no role to play in the internal tower/base fights.

SOE needs to "hit one out of the park" but instead they keep swinging for singles. They are hindered by the F2P model. Think about it, how many pissed off people would there be if they made sweeping changes and obviated the need for gear the masses purchased? We will be forever wallowing in the mire of slow and deliberate decisions because of this. I do wonder how many freeloaders actually have paid a dime in this game and is it worth it?

I haven't paid a penny (it's not freeloading if they throw it out there for free btw) but in my defence my esteem of the game is so poor I can't bring myself to pay up.

I was subbed up to PS1 though, for what it's worth. I'd sub up for PS2 if that meant getting a game on equal footing with it's namesake.

[Carver]

I see this and think: "this looks like a step in the right direction, I was hoping for a bit more but I look forward to trying it out."

I think what a lot of people are trying to convey is: "I don't think this change will help that much."

But all that's coming across is: "This change has already failed before it's been implemented, I hate this game and it's stupid devs."

[Hamma]

Pretty much :lol:

[Figment]

Aside from the lag and crash bugs, which I'm sure will get fixed, here's some feedback on all the recent building changes:

Regarding all:
The Restricted Areas might be a tad much. Granted, there's little need for being there aside from camping, but last stand's are broken off as well post-capture. Those won't last long anyway. This pain field could be tied to the SCU perhaps?

New mini-spawn buildings:
As predicted, still too small, so it's quite easy to spam the entire thing (also, one HE hit somewhere on the building throws off everyone's aim, of course it's constant as usual). Still too easy to camp simply due to location.

New Mediocre outpost buildings (typically next to bases):
Decent changes, much easier to kill from, finally able to get back to the top (Stairs! an amazing invention, not?). Unfortunately still doesn't help if you're defending "over here", while the control point is being taken "over there". With the low TTK, it's impossible to make a run for the CC, there's just Prowlers and crossfire campers everywhere in between.

Biolab - ground-to-airpad elevator update:
Nifty garage parking spot for AMSes. Good call. Could be a bit longer so the rear doesn't stick out so much, but it's a decent covered spot.

New walls:
Hip height ballustrades between the parapet walls please. :) Engineer sitting behind the turret is extremely easy to hit right now, could do with a bit of cover. We're going for headshots anyway, but an engineer's body should be covered better in a crouched position.

Defender only jumppads are a definite improvement. However, you might want to check if you can reach accross all of them properly.

I'd personally like to see a walkway over the courtyard shield entrances, much like over the open entrances.

Speaking of open entrances, I've taken Nott 4 times today. 3 times using the tunnels underneath the walls. The actual CY gates were pretty much entirely ignored by us. Wasn't helped by the fact some 50m next to the CY gate there's this huge gaping hole between towers and then another gaping hole and a tunnel between the next towers...

That's... a bit silly.

I still find the overall length of the walls (approximatly a kilometer) a bit much. You usualy don't encounter more than 200 players in an area, including friendlies. They're spread out too much.

Watchtowers:
Top level: seems okay, but could potentially have a bit wider floors so High Explosives from airborne units aren't as killing as people arn't packed as tightly. All in all, still an improvement. Perhaps some crennels or loopholes wouldn't hurt? Nice to see the little door-roofs have been added. :)

Mid Level spawn exit: good to see that we're not dropping in front of a firing squad anymore and can actually return up if you're LA. :) Perhaps an idea to use a stairwell here in the middle and a terminal in between the two, joining the two bottom exits with the stair in the middle?

Also nice to see some more blast walls in here, closing off various areas more from the outside. I'm not entirely certain how they'll all play out, especially with underslung grenade launchers in mind, but it seems like a potential good thing.

Upwards from spawns is a big improvement. No more camping the players that pop out like whack-a-mole.

New Forward Barracks (Base spawns):
Equipment terms on upper level: good! Don't think these were there before. Help a lot for resupply.

Walkways around the barracks: decent, do wonder why some parts of the walkway have no ballustrade (whether semi-open or closed). Closed is preferable, though semi open could be interesting with regards to spotting threats. Completely open is a tad dangerous. Good that the merlons are added as blast walls in front of the doors. Not just to have one sided camping removed, but also because it creates a double choke point out of one.

I've noticed the usage of chaingun turrets has increased drastically. What is annoying that since AV turrets hurt infantry (and air if you're lucky enough) for one shot kills, chaingun turrets don't do any damage to vehicles. I'd rather see that changed to a tickledeath. That goes for all bullets really, especially the Kobalt vehicle gun as well: Even if it would do next to no damage to vehicles, it might be enough to finish something off after you ran out of missiles and it would make players feel it's a bit more useful tool.

On some buildings in Esamir, I've seen the barracks have a closed top barrier towards the nearest tower. In fact, the tower itself cannot be climbed from this side. It's now easier to reach by attackers than friendlies.

New Tunnels
They don't show on the map if you're in it, especially if they'll get more complex over time, you'll want to look into that. Perhaps put some plaques on the wall with symbols of where the tunnels lead?

All in all, why tunnels if you could do the exact same thing, but quicker, with teleporters underneath the same areas?

The connection sofar hasn't helped us, since the exits are always camped by the time you use them. Before that, you tend to use Sunderers. If you're going to keep these, the ones that pop out on the wall have very little cover around them when people pop out. It's quite simple to lay C4 at these exits and wait for people to jump out. Should be even easier with an underslang grenade launcher and an ammo pack.

Would much rather have two-way tunnels with the spawnroom in or underneath the actual base, connecting all important objectives.

Tech Plant:
New entry points up high: good. But. Since you can access the Tech Plant through multiple open points now, why not move the shield gens back inside? Especially now that the vehicle points are on the far side from the spawns? The top and bottom still feel very disconnected though. Would still have been nice had the midlevel been used as the spawnroom area.