Tunnels wont really fix anything - Page 5

Sledgecrushr · 2013-01-14, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Locking vehicles out of the fight shouldn't be the goal, since that doesn't in any way increase how easy it is to defend something, it's just a cheap way around actually balancing combined arms warfare.

None of us dont want to lock vehicles out of the fight. I think we have a consensus here that vehicle spam in a predominantly infantry situation was killing the game. Tank and air was farming infantry because of the openness of the base design, thats not fun for a lot of folks. We just want some better delineated areas that make infantry more relevant.

Rockit · 2013-01-14, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

I'm excited they can actually go underground now in the engine. I don't think anyone expects this to be any sort of end all fix though.

Can you imagine Everquest Next without dungeons? wink wink And no it won't be the fix all here but it will open up opportunity for extensive future base basements and such. Think of this as version 00.00.01. Will be nice to get to 01.00.00.

ringring · 2013-01-14, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Asked Higby by tweet if we could see the new spawnbuildings ahead of time, if the CC would move into the same building (really hope they also make the buildings centralised to outposts) and with regards to tunnels if the CC would move underground as well and what the logistical distance to travel would be from the nearest enemy Sunderer option and spawns.

No response as of yet.

Do my ears decieve me?

I turned on FNO ops on youtube and JimmyWhis said that in the next show they would be showcasing tunnels..... I expect this won't be the final iteration but would be a work in progress...... so that 4 days folks.

ShadetheDruid · 2013-01-14, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by ringring

Do my ears decieve me?

I turned on FNO ops on youtube and JimmyWhis said that in the next show they would be showcasing tunnels..... I expect this won't be the final iteration but would be a work in progress...... so that 4 days folks.

Yeah, they said they'd be doing little showcases of upcoming stuff in future shows (well, they would've started in the last episode, but I think they had technical issues). Well worth tuning in just to see some sneak peeks, and hopefully that means more than just of tunnels.

RykerStruvian · 2013-01-14, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rockit

Kinda off topic but it looks base related. What the heck is this? Putting giant squid in those new tunnels?

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2262

Higby give any details?

That is Hossin...the new continent they are working on. It is a jungle/swampy marsh continent. Looking forward to it actually...really excited.

EVILoHOMER · 2013-01-14, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

I'm excited they can actually go underground now in the engine. I don't think anyone expects this to be any sort of end all fix though.

Hopefully Caverns aren't coming.

Wahooo · 2013-01-14, 04:22 PM

Tunnels are a step. Hopefully it is as much a test for them in implementing underground levels to bases.
YES this does not fix anything.
YES it is going to take more.

The defensability of bases is simply going to take a LOT more. I don't think we can reasonably think it will be done in one patch... maybe several even.

Redshift · 2013-01-14, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by KaskaMatej

You're wrong.

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/288881512303169536

Well that's good news

, it's new though

SixShooter · 2013-01-14, 04:36 PM

Saying that tunnels wont fix anything is wrong. Adding tunnels fixes the fact that there are currently no tunnels in the game

.

ShadetheDruid · 2013-01-14, 05:19 PM

Let's not forget that tunnels aren't the only physical spawn-related change coming in the patch as well, so it's not like they're making a singular change to spawns all on its own.

Hamma · 2013-01-14, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

I think the real question should: Why now? Couldn't it before? Why not? If it could, why not implement such designs in the first place?

Beats me, all I know is they couldn't before.

Rockit · 2013-01-14, 08:53 PM

But never fear, I am sure they will give Libs bunker busters shortly after the patch

Dkamanus · 2013-01-14, 09:50 PM

What I want to see is a multi-layered multi-floored base inside a mountain that has objectives in a lot of places, which make sense and make the infantry combat interesting. Although not JUST hallways (bigger rooms in betwen), I think people want some bases as well.

Archonzero · 2013-01-15, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Locking vehicles out of the fight shouldn't be the goal, since that doesn't in any way increase how easy it is to defend something, it's just a cheap way around actually balancing combined arms warfare.

None of us dont want to lock vehicles out of the fight. I think we have a consensus here that vehicle spam in a predominantly infantry situation was killing the game. Tank and air was farming infantry because of the openness of the base design, thats not fun for a lot of folks. We just want some better delineated areas that make infantry more relevant.

Exactly Sledge. I've no intention of wanting them to lock vehicles out of the fight, neither do my ideas for base redesigns. Basically there are 3 combined arms elements, air, ground, infantry. What I've suggested in my base redesign elements is this.

Attacker makes a push to a base, it should require (not always) a combined arms approach to overwhelm the outer defensive lines (outer camps + outer wall defenses).

Following this, further assaults should require a combined arms, infantry + ground to get footholds into the inner yard of the base itself. Infantry should play the key role here, an the inner yard layout should be an urban close quarter style setup. As anyone knows urban combat is not a place where ground vehicles should dominate, they simply have no room to maneuver an are very vulnerable if not supported by a strong infantry presence.

The final push into the base should be purely infantry! As well the respawn point for the defenders should only allow infantry to lock it down. This gives the defense a completely level field in terms of odds to break the lock down an attempts to resecure the base.

In it's current form, there's really little to no chance of such options.

BlaxicanX · 2013-01-15, 01:04 AM

The three arms of a fight should counter each other in a rock-paper-scissors manner.

Air units counter ground vehicles, being used primarily to harass tank convoys and destroy sunderers that are either en route to a base or camping out around the edges. In turn, air units get countered by infantry, who can blow them out of the sky with either AA turrets (which should destroy ships fairly easily) or mass AA missile launcher fire (which individually should not pose a threat for aircraft, but when combined in mass volleys should be enough to be lethal). In turn, infantry get murdered by tanks, which are used to bombard buildings, fight other tanks or suppress infantry mobs. Tanks get countered by aircraft, and the cycle continues.

In this manner, you force each facet of the game to have a specific role. Aircraft are king on the open road, in-between bases, but can't mercilessly farm bases by hovering around them due to how easily a base's anti-air can trash them. So in order to bring aircraft near a base, you need masses of infantry to storm the base first, and "silence the guns", so to speak. The infantry make it to the base alive by virtue of having tanks that transport and cover them via bombarding a base and dueling any tanks that are defending it. Once infantry reach the base, they can engage the infantry inside of it, shut down the various important systems within it, including the AA turrets, which allow aircraft to bombard the base and galaxies to perform airdrops.

How to make this scenario a reality? Make AA turrets vastly stronger, enough to kill aircraft in just a few seconds of sustained fire, and make aa missile launchers do more damage (but not enough to one-shot a plane). AA turrets should be either extremely resilient to all forms of enemy fire, or completely invulnerable, with the only way to destroy them being either hacking, C4 or disabling an important system like gens.

Give the Lightning's gun an extremely weak, near non-existent splash radius, but compensate by making the blast do more damage. Also, give the turret a low vertical-arc, so it's harder to aim up into buildings. This gives it a dedicated anti-armor role, with it being less effective versus infantry.

Give the two-man tank a larger splash damage radius, enough to kill two or three people in one blast, but give it a slow rate of fire, and have it shoot in an arc instead of straight- this gives it a dedicated artillery role, good against infantry and against buildings, but less effective versus enemy tanks.