Building Forward Bases - Supply Bases. - Page 7

Magpie · 2012-04-06, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by MacTruckuLes

Just to let you know EvilPig, the Curse-PAX interview references your idea for the forward bases.

This,

Bittermen · 2012-04-06, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Kilmoran

First of all.. the Galaxy in this version seems to already do what you are suggesting the Sunderer should do.

And mobile vehicle spawns? Absolutely... 100% ...hell no. No.. no no no. No. There is far too much that can be abused from that... vehicles can change the entire way an operation will go, and being able to flank from all sides because of a few lodestars? Completely not in favor of this.

R&R capability, absolutely. Infantry spawns, certainly, as a couple of tank can wreck that if it is discovered. Even forward defenses, absolutely fine for holding a more open territory given how the hex system of territories will work. But having all sorts of vehicles convert in to mini R&R "villas" on their own i think is a bad way to approach it.

I agree with this.

EVILPIG · 2012-04-06, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by MacTruckuLes

Just to let you know EvilPig, the Curse-PAX interview references your idea for the forward bases.

Sweet, Higby did seem to like it. What did he say or can I read/see that somewhere?

EVILPIG · 2012-04-07, 12:04 AM

OP updated with example.

Captain1nsaneo · 2012-04-07, 01:11 AM

I like the idea of forward bases and that the Sundy can deploy to give an AoE of radar similar to interlink or a shield bubble.

As long as these are retrofits for this style of play rather than standard issue I think this would be awesome. The sundy that resupplies can't produce a shield or scan for enemies. Personally I'd also like to have the lib involved in this. In another thread a guy came up with replacing the lib's cannon with a supply drop (maybe also get an AB as part of the swap, heck maybe trade the nose cannon for limited cloak as well).

This multiple roles for vehicles is something that can be extended beyond what's been outlined here and I'm really interested to see if the devs take note of it. Some times playing support is more fun than playing offensively.

Stardouser · 2012-04-07, 01:25 AM

Attached is an example of what I was talking about earlier. When you place one Galaxy(or any other Base Construction Component Vehicle), which in my drawing is shown in black on the bottom of the diamond formation, the game will then project lines and deployment guide markers (which are the red lines and squares) showing you where to deploy the other sections in order to link. The circle in the middle is where an engineer could erect a Portable Generator to complete it, or if they don't want to do it that way, you deploy a 5th base construction vehicle there, and voila, base becomes active, shield generator, spawning functions etc all become active, the ground inside the perimeter is replaced with metal instead of grass or whatever it was before, etc.

EVILPIG · 2012-04-07, 03:13 AM

An actual base, the kind you can Cap, offers much more defense and permanence, for that reason, I envision a Forward Base as being much more simple. No linking, no resources. Just spawn points, repairs and resupply terms. It is vulnerable.

All is open to discussion though.

Captain1nsaneo · 2012-04-07, 04:13 AM

Hmm... a thought on the shields. If they do require setup I don't see why you couldn't do something with cloakers to counter it. For example in PS if you have a T-Rek (I think) you can hack Aegis gens to produce a painfield for the people who deployed it. Cloakers could do similar things but not so much painfield as inverting the shield so you can't shoot out but can shoot in. Or maybe just being able to disable it.

Stardouser · 2012-04-07, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

An actual base, the kind you can Cap, offers much more defense and permanence, for that reason, I envision a Forward Base as being much more simple. No linking, no resources. Just spawn points, repairs and resupply terms. It is vulnerable.

All is open to discussion though.

How would you capture them, though, if it's just a bunch of individually placed vehicles with no link?

And for that matter, would there be a limit on how many vehicles of this type could be deployed, and would they decay, or when the battle completely ends for a hex, as you know players can simply pull more Galaxies/Sunderers/Lodestars, are there going to be old forward bases littering the ground all over the world?

Personally, I would not mind if there were! But it's something to be considered.

EVILPIG · 2012-04-07, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

How would you capture them, though, if it's just a bunch of individually placed vehicles with no link?

And for that matter, would there be a limit on how many vehicles of this type could be deployed, and would they decay, or when the battle completely ends for a hex, as you know players can simply pull more Galaxies/Sunderers/Lodestars, are there going to be old forward bases littering the ground all over the world?

Personally, I would not mind if there were! But it's something to be considered.

You wouldn't capture them and the decay would be them being destroyed by the enemy. If the owners of the vehicles left to spawn other vehicles, their old ones would dissolve, like in Planetside 1. I also wouldn't limit how much player's could put into these. The limit depends pon the players, as thy have to own the vehicles.

Yes, they would be scattered across the battlefield. Every player deployed component is a trade off for say, a tank or aircraft. If the enemy has more tanks or aircraft, they'll likely be destroying your supply components.

It's not a "base" liek the bases, it's more of an encampment.

Stardouser · 2012-04-07, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

You wouldn't capture them and the decay would be them being destroyed by the enemy. If the owners of the vehicles left to spawn other vehicles, their old ones would dissolve, like in Planetside 1. I also wouldn't limit how much player's could put into these. The limit depends pon the players, as thy have to own the vehicles.

Yes, they would be scattered across the battlefield. Every player deployed component is a trade off for say, a tank or aircraft. If the enemy has more tanks or aircraft, they'll likely be destroying your supply components.

It's not a "base" liek the bases, it's more of an encampment.

So if, after going to deploy forward base assets, the player who did it goes to spawn another vehicle, the deployed asset poofs? I don't think that works at all. The idea of this is deploy and forget I would think, and if they dissolve upon the purchaser spawning a new vehicle it's not going to work that way. What are the players who deploy these things expected to do, sit with it for 2 hours?

Tycho · 2012-04-07, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

What are the players who deploy these things expected to do, sit with it for 2 hours?

They can gun in someone elses vehicle or join the infantry. These forward bases would be set up as part of an assault on a base or other capturable position. There would be plenty for him/her to do. MANA turret to defend the forward base would also be an option. A good number of PS1 players liked the support role. I dont see a problem here.

Stardouser · 2012-04-07, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Tycho

They can gun in someone elses vehicle or join the infantry. These forward bases would be set up as part of an assault on a base or other capturable position. There would be plenty for him/her to do. MANA turret to defend the forward base would also be an option. A good number of PS1 players liked the support role. I dont see a problem here.

Sure there's a lot to do, but if all of it requires them not pulling a new vehicle that whole time, that's too limiting. What if it becomes necessary during the course of the fight to respond to some kind of enemy vehicle defense action with vehicles and as everyone else respawns vehicle, he has to stay alone and plink at the enemy as infantry? Also, it removes sandbox play, what if they want to set up multiple forward bases(for the same assault)? Which brings up another question, should there be a limit on how many there can be?

Tycho · 2012-04-07, 12:15 PM

I dont think that a couple of guys should be able to set up multiple forward bases. Just like one guy couldnt set up multiple AMS's in the original Planetside. There needs to be an owner for that vehicle even in a deployed state. An AMS driver couldnt go deploy an AMS and then go pull a tank without the AMS deconstructing.

I dont think this removes sandbox play. I think it encourages teamwork and strategy. If you want multiple forward bases then multiple people will need to set them up. These battles are supposed to be huge with 100s if not 1000s of players. I dont think this is limiting. If you dont want to dedicate your resources to deploying a forward base then another squad will.

If we use the OP example, one Galaxy, one Sundy, one Liberator. Then as engineer enhances the defences. Thats four people out of a squad of ten. These four could then crew vehicles for others in their squad. I dont see how this is limiting. How many vehicles do you think one person should be able to pull? How does this remove sandbox play?

vampyro · 2012-04-07, 12:21 PM

No forward bases that deploy vehicles in the middle of nowhere. Just my opinion.

Maybe have deploy-able vehicles in designated outpost areas, where you can only deploy certain types of vehicles.

If you want a tank, you need to go to a major base like a tech plant or something.

The fight has be to be fair, why in the world would we want to be able to pull vehicles from anywhere on the battle field with a couple of deployed vehicles.