New Facility Walls via Higby

[Paperboy]

I cant see it, oh wait... its almost like how they modelled all the weapons with slight differences.

[NewSith]

My response:

[CrazEpharmacist]

I must be blind because I really don't see much of a difference here. If anything, this is a nerf because now it is full body cover disallowing us peak over like we could previously.

Can we just please get some cover like this: http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/7...side1cover.png

[MercDT]

I fail to see how this will help out in any major battle. If anything this will make the walls for the defenders even more difficult to defend since these new "shields" will funnel defenders into tighter groups, making them even more prone to high explosive fire.

All I'm really seeing is just less points to defend when you're standing on the walls (due to the funnel) and just an easier way for the attackers to gain multi kills. I really think they should cover up the walls with firing ports without any of the large holes we're seeing now.

Perhaps we might also see an increase in galaxy drops if that were to happen...

[CraazyCanuck]

Naw much better to have a base that was engineered not for defense but for a general free for all for defender and attacker alike. Seriously? Who would ever even think to enginer a base like any that are in game now? Other then Bio Lab with is dome, each base is a defensive nightmare. One clusterf.ck after another that you have to attempt to defend. I can understand the need to give the attackers options for attack else why bother attacking a base at all if its impregnable, but the advantage should be with the defender and it should take some serious combined arms effort for the attacker to capture. And a defender should be looking outwards to defend not constantly having to fallback to negate the enemy slipping through blatant holes in the base's defensive integrity.

I am a base defending whore, but it's out of pure lunacy and an instatiable appetite to achieve the near impossible. Sure I and those others crazy enough to stick it out fail more often then not, but that 1/10 when you turn the tides against a major push is a definite HELL YEAH! moment.

[Palerion]

*I find that I have the most fun in biolabs...*

Because they are defensible, battles last long, the action is plentiful, and liberators can't spam you every time you spawn.

[Sturmhardt]

I don't see how this is gonna help the defenders. They still have to expose their whole body to fire at the attackers. What we need are hip high walls that allow the defenders to crouch behind and take cover. Otherwise the walls are useless.

.sent via phone.

[Shamrock]

Originally Posted by Figment

The large merlons are a necessary upgrade though, good to see they added that (@Canaris mainly provides recuperation shelter and blocks some Light Assault passages).

Now they only have to...

- ...plug the holes between merlons with hip high balustrades. (Also: no merlons, at most hip high balustrades on the inner side of the wall I hope).
- ...plug all major holes and access routes in defenses that bypass the shields entirely.
- ...reduce the courtyard size, so circumference length of the walls is shorter, hence the defender density on them is higher, it's easier to relocate and maintain an overview and respond to actually potential breach attempts by LA's.
- ...add an SOI (generator) so they can't be negated by drop pods and defenders can focus outwards.
- ...remove the consistency of the attacker jumppad/teleport options and relate it to having control of the courtyard and potential keep breach, rather than control of an outpost.
- ...add walkways from keep to wall and between courtyard buildings and wall.




It's a package deal, really. It's one good step of many to take, but it is a good step. >.>

Agreed that its a step in the right direction, so thank you for implementing this; though if they could be modified to include a firing slit this would be appreciated.

[Beerbeer]

Well, regardless of the details, I'm glad they are serious about making base changes.

I think the existing base designs seriously undermines the game and any changes will be positive.

Base changes then meta game.

[MrBloodworth]

I approve of this small, measured change.

[Fishy]

The 2 pictures look the same to me ... where's the difference?

[Beerbeer]

I know a lot of people are on this "combined arms" baloney, which isn't truly the case right now, but one positive thing about base changes is that Sony can start selling us more infantry guns, which they can make an almost endless variety. So I think it's a win/win for everyone. I personally have a big interest in this department, but under the current circumstances, feel no need or desire to expand my infantry weapon inventory.

Think about it, the emphasis since release has been entirely on vehicles and AV weapons, and for a reason.

People think that we want COD. That couldn't be farther from the truth. We like combined arms, we like having choices, but the existing setup severely constrains things in regards to the frustration/enjoyment factor of infantry play versus vehicle play.

I think base changes will go a long way to slightly adjusting this imbalance and, as a benefit, I think more people will be keen to defend, which will also be a big positive for everyone.

[RykerStruvian]

I don't understand, why can't they just make the walls like the walls from the alpha screenies? Why try to do something else? Is there a legitimate reason other than trying to be stubborn? Not trying to be ungrateful, but more or less trying to understand their decision process and reasons.

I just hate the fact we can't get a straight answer on WHY they decide to do one thing or another.

[Assist]

I guess this makes it so it's easier for the defenders to get around after they've lost the interior of the base?

Yeah, don't see how this changes anything. Attacking or defending.

[PurpleOtter]

Walls! AWESOME!

Now SOE just needs to master an incredibly advanced technology called Windows and Doors...