News: New Esamir Bases - Page 3

OmegaPREDATOR · 2013-05-25, 11:36 AM

Wow some interseting news.

But, as the pessimistic guy I'm, I just want to ask something with that type of infantery area only. What to do with vehicules you pop 2min before ?

Just wait till somebody take the base ?
Go down from your vehicule and wait he be destroy or his timer pass ?

And when finishing cap did you will have to wait 10min more to had the possibility to re pop your vehicule ? And lost your ressource pretty fast !

Will be interesting to return deconstruct button, returning ressources (with a ratio for damage) and timer.
But devs don't like deconstruct button cause to many people use it prevent the destruction of the vehicule, so what ?
Just had a timer of 20s (?) when deconstructing with the same mecanism has redeploy button (don't shoot and don't take damage).

Oups I lost the main thread idea.

So they want some infantery only place. Why not, but as already said in this thread, why use vehicules so ?

Better idea would have to had "roads" for vehicules who allow to have vehicules in some place on bases but not every where (and especially near spawn). Like that :

It will gave infantery only places and mixed infantery/vehicule places limitating the number of tanks that could shoot at the same time (but will be a C-4 danger place... can't have all solutions

).

Speacking about the shield who can lets pass aerial and according to what have been wrote :

Originally Posted by Shogun

i am afraid the pilots will abuse the shields to hell and back. they will abuse them like spawnshields are abused now for camping. i know, nobody can shoot through domes, but the pilots can hoover from firemode to safety in a second. So the shields will not protect infantry from airspam, they will enfore even more airspam and render almost every aa useless as a counter.

It maybe a good idea, but will be transforme fast into a bad one.

And why use floating pillones ?

Just use the same system as warpgate !

If they want limited interactions between vehicules and infantery why not make 2/3 levels in lots/each bases ?

Ground level : who will be near the same as what we already have (could be defend by a shield to protect against aerial).
Sub-level : who is a infantery place (same as ground level -so open place- but can't be approach with vehicules).
Upper-level : place from where you can shoot ground and air, like the top of new spawn rooms :

But yes ! had a shield on arial pads would be great !
No more snipers when land in emergency landing and repearing.
Giving one (small place) where DCA, missiles, and other aerials can't destroy you in 2s when just land). But yes, bigger place will be needed.

ChipMHazard · 2013-05-25, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by ItZMuRdA

At a point, they should not have to. In PS1 they didn't have to, and that wasn't COD. There was courtyards and outdoor fights that were all vehicle territory, but the indoors of bases (underground, etc.) were much larger and players HAD to get out of their vehicles to hack the CC, destroy the gen or spawn tubes, etc. It was a great setup for people who liked both infantry and vehicles as there were different areas for them to shine.

Although they weren't as popular, the battle islands and caverns were more infantry-focused as well. I'm sorry if you hate it, but a lot of people like myself who always run infantry absolutely love having this as an OPTION.

Heck I don't see it as being impossible to add in capture points that can be captured by ground vehicles, like an open fuel depot perfect for armored warfare.
Or even if done right air vehicles, like having a floating structure that would provide some bonus.
I do think that it's a great idea for most of the bases, and certainly the most important ones, be about battles that require multiple phases to conquer. Armor/air to get everyone there and then clear out the perimeter defenses, then have the infantry take over the taking of the interior itself until such a time when they have taken down all the gens, thus letting the armor and/or air in.

Have the above ideas for a few areas, or even special islands, to spice up the gameplay a bit. For those that want certain types of gameplay. (The ideas are obviously just crude fantastical concepts)
But I do see plenty of potential for both combined gameplay and gameplay that focuses on specific types of warfare. (Ground, air and sea)

ItZMuRdA · 2013-05-25, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Heck I don't see it as being impossible to add in capture points that can be captured by ground vehicles, like an open fuel depot perfect for armored warfare.
Or even if done right air vehicles, like having a floating structure that would provide some bonus.
I do think that it's a great idea for most of the bases, and certainly the most important ones, be about battles that require multiple phases to conquer. Armor/air to get the everyone here and then clear out the perimeter defenses, then have the infantry take over the taking of the interior itself until such a time when they have taken down all the gens, thus letting the armor and/or air in.

Have a the above ideas for a few areas, or even special islands, to spice up the gameplay a bit. For those that want certain types of gameplay. (The ideas are obviously just crude fantastical concepts)

For sure! I've always favored infantry but never been about restricting fights for people who prefer vehicles, too. The multi-phase cap or even different base types that play to one strength over the other is fine, but I'm just very glad that infantry is finally getting some love in regard to not being spawn camped by vehicles from hundreds of meters away so easily.

I loved that system in PS1 that allowed for a progression of outdoor vehicle fights to courtyard fights to indoor fights inside the base proper that would all be required to successfully capture the base -- not one extreme or the other.

I'm really, really excited about these dome shields.

Akrasjel Lanate · 2013-05-25, 12:26 PM

More or less looks nice. Like the walls

HiroshiChugi · 2013-05-25, 12:35 PM

I think they look nice... One step at a time we are getting newer and better game play mechanics. Keep it up SOE!

camycamera · 2013-05-25, 12:38 PM

YES! YES!

NewSith · 2013-05-25, 01:19 PM

I really like the changes. ^Honestly that's EXACTLY what I'm feeling. Although, there are 2 points I feel I need to make:

a) I don't think the Lattice should be presented on Esamir and Amerish until there is at least some basic way of backhacking.
b) I think the dome thing needs some significant polishing.

As for it being "constant", I like it. But I just feel the hate of flyboys and Liberator farmers approaching...

MaxDamage · 2013-05-25, 01:39 PM

This half-arsed pea-brained appeal to call of duty "omg vehicles don't belong here" crowd cannot and will not make it onto live in any form that looks like the one in the video.
I do not need to see it polished and finished before I judge it, I am a seasoned gamer of many franchises and indie fps titles and I can say with far greater experience than the guy talking in the video that these walls are an idea of the crappest and laziest variety.

They will reward only shotgun and peekaboo players.

As for shields, bombers exist both in reality and in game to attack bases. What purpose will libs now serve? They'll be as redundant as the Galaxy was on release.

MarlboroManE · 2013-05-25, 01:55 PM

The lattice has created some great fights - especially great infantry fights - already on Indar, and the base rebuilds have made a huge difference too. At this point, the idea of shields seems outlandish to me, but honestly ... have they made a poor design decision yet? Everything they've done has worked. I'll keep an open mind.

ringring · 2013-05-25, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by MarlboroManE

The lattice has created some great fights - especially great infantry fights - already on Indar, and the base rebuilds have made a huge difference too. At this point, the idea of shields seems outlandish to me, but honestly ... have they made a poor design decision yet? Everything they've done has worked. I'll keep an open mind.

Erm yes they've made poor design decisions. This is evidenced by the amount of rework that has had to be done.

NoblesseOblige · 2013-05-25, 02:16 PM

I'm kind of on the fence about this. I understand the frustrations a lot of infantry have with spawn camping vehicles/air (older versions of the game it was a pain to be my main class, medic because what am I going to do against a camping Lib?) However, I have also gleaned an affinity for driving MBTs and I can see this just neutering the vehicular game. It's not as fun when it's just that much harder to interact with hostile infantry.

I'm absolutely willing to give it a try and I'll definitely be taking a look at it when it launches on the Test Server, but I'm just wary about this being a move too far in the infantry direction. Also, not to be a 'Debby downer' or anything, but the outpost wall's art assets on the redesign look kind of... lazy. I'm aware it's a work in progress. I just hope it becomes a little more aesthetically pleasing closer to testing.

JesNC · 2013-05-25, 02:23 PM

I really like the new outpost design in general and those walls in particular, but I feel the "shield dome" might turn every outpost into some sort of mini-biolab.

Mastachief · 2013-05-25, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

I guess I am

But still. Infantry should never be safe from vehicles outside of buildings. And now when infantry have allot of different ways to deal with vehicles I see no need to please all the pussy noobs that QQ over every thing.

Besides the Lib have been nerfed to the point that it's weapons are so week that using any other vehicle/tactic is way more efficient.

Did you even bother to watch the fucking video?

The shield is more a warpgate bubble/dome and will not cover everything infact there are gaping holes, people and vehicles can pass through the dome. What the domes do is mitigate the spam that dominates all fights. Frankly the changes are epic. Vehicle fights between bases and outpost, less vehicle spam at the bases / outposts.

Also less striker spam into bases and outposts from the hills and more mitigation on burster spaff.

BTW snipers cannot currently shoot through the dome (frankly it should stay this way and there are plenty of gaps around it for them to use).

NewSith · 2013-05-25, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by MaxDamage

This half-arsed pea-brained appeal to call of duty "omg vehicles don't belong here" crowd cannot and will not make it onto live in any form that looks like the one in the video.
I do not need to see it polished and finished before I judge it, I am a seasoned gamer of many franchises and indie fps titles and I can say with far greater experience than the guy talking in the video that these walls are an idea of the crappest and laziest variety.

They will reward only shotgun and peekaboo players.

You like to drive a tank, don't you?

As for shields, bombers exist both in reality and in game to attack bases. What purpose will libs now serve? They'll be as redundant as the Galaxy was on release.

The Liberators are not bombers. Bombers bomb. Liberators shoot. See my point?

Anyway when I first saw these shields I kind of had 1 big question in mind - So instead of turning a Liberator into an actual bomber, they will create a completely unrealistic and unnecessary limitation like these domes... Heh...

Shogun · 2013-05-25, 02:52 PM

prophecy:

the domes will be responsible for even more airspam.
only solution: make the dome impassable by aircraft. you can hotdrop troops through the dome, but you cannot hover in, shoot and retreat behind the projectile shield.

we already have too many shield situations where this "tactic" is used. and the least thing we need is a shield that aircrafts can use to hide while reloading.