A Path Beyond Defensive Structures (Not base defences)

[Mojoman]

Had a thought while playing today.

 

You know those guard towers and bunkers that you see scattered around as set pieces? I find their main use to be a quick place to hide from vehicles as you then slowly get blasted by splash damage, or hide from an air unit until they lose interest. Or if you're feeling patient, ambushing an arty or v2 that happens by and killing it from behind. That's mainly bunkers though, the guard towers are extremely limited in that, as they stand out like a sore thumb.

I was thinking, would it be possible, or desirable, to add an area buff to towers and bunkers that would reduce splash damage from explosions like a tank shell or v2 rocket / arty shell? Infantry damage from bullets would be unchanged obviously, and tesla damage would be unchanged as well (Due to shockies being unfairly dinged and frankly electricity zaps things good).

It would provide an incentive to use these structures as something other than a place to hide and die.

The capture logic on Rocktrap shows that specific areas can detect a player being present, is it possible to add a buff in them?

 

[des1206]

Garrison bonus, in my APB? I think you are in the wrong forum buddy, get your butt to Apoc Rising!

- I don't hate the idea, but I don't think they can do new scripts at this stage of APB. 

[Raap]

Often the only way to flush out a tower-hugger is by splash damage. Making people less vulnerable to it while up there, combined with the ease of camping ladders, and you risk added "safe zones". That's assuming this is even possible to pull off with the existing game logic.

As for adding defenses... If it is man-able, it needs to be destructible. Then we have lots of work and questions to answers... Like do they respawn? Repairable? Capturable? What purpose do they serve and how efficient should they be at it? You'll need to create the actual weapon artwork including damage and destruction states, animation, rigging, firing animations, projectiles, audio, emitters, preset data, strings, etc. A lot of things to consider and work on for what may not even be a good addition for gameplay. Additionally, W3D has a limitation right now where you cannot harm a visible-driver, which created those awkward situations where you put bullets into someone who is invulnerable, see Siege cannons or Rangers.

Lastly however, what's wrong with terrain just being... Terrain? It inherently already has the benefit of simply existing as cover from direct damage, and due to the height, the guard tower in particular is interesting for Snipers. Not every re-usable assets needs special logic assigned to it. If we did that, then after a few updates we'd no longer have a consistently balanced fighting environment, but rather a set of small balance ecosystems where players will start to get confused about all these small rules.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Raap

[Mojoman]

You're right. Bad idea. I dont know hoe to deletr this thread though.

[Raap]

38 minutes ago, Mojoman said:

You're right. Bad idea. I dont know hoe to deletr this thread though.

Discussing things helps, no reason to delete anything. 

[Raptor29aa]

Best defense is a good offense. While defensive structures are handy for defense nothing says destroy the enemy more than using a concrete bunker near an opponent's base to attack their base.

-the need for more defensive structures or stronger ones near a base or even in the field can always backfire. For example Castles were more than defensive structures.

[Raap]

It's all about intent. If you want to add more defense to bases then man-able defenses is not a proven way of going about doing that. Tried and true remain geometry design and good old AI controlled defenses.

But if the intent is otherwise, such as a map objective, the sky is the limit - or at least, tuning is! The Cannons on Siege for example were intended to be a point of focus for offense, but they have gone from overpowered, to now barely worth using. The devil is as always, in the little details.

[devilslayersbane]

What if we made pillboxes/flame towers have be man-able until destroyed? Battlezone II: Combat Commander did this and it would allow players to override the autonomous target prioritization. For example: A HT is rushing an enemy base supported by infantry, and allies are in defensive mode. The Heavy tank is the prioritized target due to the high risk factor as determined by the AI, but the rocket soldiers bought by allies mean that they are much more effective against it, but have reduced effectiveness against infantry. Thus, the soviet infantry have easier targets. However, if the pillbox was able to be manned, the Heavy tank could be prioritized by the rocket dudes, while the soviet infantry could be targeted by the pillbox.

[Pushwall]

16 minutes ago, devilslayersbane said:

The Heavy tank is the prioritized target due to the high risk factor as determined by the AI,

Given that the Pillbox has the same priority settings as a Flame Tower and people keep talking about how the FT suddenly switches targets away from a heavily damaged ranger to hit the higher-priority captain when it sees a captain, and the FT already has much higher priority for hitting rangers than hitting heavy vehicles, I'm pretty sure this doesn't happen unless the Soviet infantry aren't even in the pillbox's range.

[NodGuy]

5 hours ago, devilslayersbane said:

What if we made pillboxes/flame towers have be man-able until destroyed?

I always wondered if it would be possible for players to enter and use defensive structures, and when they're not being used they are controlled by the game's A.I. The only downside I see would be when a "n00b" enters the structure and due to their "noobness", i.e., missing shots, the enemy succeeds.

[TeamWolf]

Renegade's tutorial was going to have you control the AGT against a Nod assault.

[gammae102]

I will say that I think the guard towers themselves are pretty useless and you will die much quicker if you go into one.  What you gain in cover you more than lose by limited mobility.  Ironically, I think they could actually use  few more holes in the wall to shoot out of, as well as making the walls a little higher so you aren't automatically dead the second a sniper becomes aware of your presence.  I don't think that would make them too strong, but hopefully they would be a little more useful.

[Ice]

18 hours ago, NodGuy said:

I always wondered if it would be possible for players to enter and use defensive structures, and when they're not being used they are controlled by the game's A.I. The only downside I see would be when a "n00b" enters the structure and due to their "noobness", i.e., missing shots, the enemy succeeds.

Not only this, but some players could even use this to deliberately team-hamper; Purposefully letting the enemy team through and not engaging them, making the otherwise effective defensive structure useless.

Personally, I'm all for man-able defences in appropriate locations on some maps, but they would need to be a secondary defence by their nature; machine gun nest, anti-tank gun, mortar pit, etc. Essentially, their role would be to harass and slow down the enemy rather than outright stop them, so they would need to be effective enough to be worth using, but not to the point of overshadowing the main defences. Caution would also need to be exercised to not overuse them on maps.

[NodGuy]

1 minute ago, Ice said:

Not only this, but some players could even use this to deliberately team-hamper; Purposefully letting the enemy team through and not engaging them, making the otherwise effective defensive structure useless.

Personally, I'm all for man-able defences in appropriate locations on some maps, but they would need to be a secondary defence by their nature; machine gun nest, anti-tank gun, mortar pit, etc. Essentially, their role would be to harass and slow down the enemy rather than outright stop them, so they would need to be effective enough to be worth using, but not to the point of overshadowing the main defences. Caution would also need to be exercised to not overuse them on maps.

I think it would be cool if it was unique to a map. Like that old, old infantry map that had just a barracks and a refinery and the ore truck that spawned had to be player operated. More maps like that would be sweet.