Originally Posted by Beerbeer
You know who I really blame? The early, early alpha/beta people who didn't throw a fit when the bases were changed, as I believe they were more stout and protected at some point during development based on reports from Sony's forum.
|
No, they weren't. They were even less defensible than they are now. See those walls? See those shields? They were not there in tech test or even very early beta. It was even more ridiculous and the only reason why there are any walls at all is because of the early tech test/beta players screaming and pointing to the really very early concept art and saying "why don't we have walls?".
But don't feel I am putting you down, you have a very good point and I agree 100% - we need to be able to defend bases otherwise, whats the point?
Attacking zergs should crash into the bases and be held back - not just stroll through the doors and enjoy the prolonged wait until the base flips. You should be able to hold a base with at very least half of the numbers of forces attacking and for gods sake - PUT THE DEFENDING SPAWN POINTS IN THE BASE - NOT ON THE PERIPHERY!"
SOE need to think less of the Maginot Line (pointless fixed positions overrun by mobile troops) and more of Roukes Drift (defensible positions held by smaller numbers). Likely poor example but you get my drift (see what I did there?)
2013-01-06, 07:37 PM
Threaded Mode