New Tower "Barriers"

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

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]

Originally Posted by Phantomdestiny

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]

Originally Posted by KaskaMatej

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Mietz

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Mietz

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.