Fortification needs to be quicker

mike2289 · June 20, 2019 12:53AM

Just a suggestion. I think if you can build fortifications a little quicker i think it will incentivise more people to do it . Theres times where there is no cover what so ever and needs to be fortified im usually the only one doing the dirty work lol.

JUJAMAKILL · June 20, 2019 4:11AM

I would like them to last a bit longer and give a bit more resistance. I think this is half the reason why most people don't bother building them. 1 piat and you have just wasted your time.

sabootheshaman · June 20, 2019 4:28AM

JUJAMAKILL wrote: »

I would like them to last a bit longer and give a bit more resistance. I think this is half the reason why most people don't bother building them. 1 piat and you have just wasted your time.

Actually been thinking that maybe support should be able to build something stronger like concrete that can’t be penetrated.

Seems the base of the towers in outpost are.

Matty101yttam · June 20, 2019 6:25AM

Yeah they are too soft...but from a players perspective there's no point to them, cover is simply cover, a rock or a sandbag doesn't pick sides so whether it is built or not built doesn't really impact the outcome.
Cover only works irl because the enemy must expose themselves (with their 1 life) to breach it while you are safe and have better chances of fighting off a coordinated assault with a coordinated defence.
Battlefield has people everywhere, there is quite often enemy nearby(at any time) who can simply walk behind the defences without being noticed, that's why they are more of a gimmick in bf and they need to design game modes around it.

To be honest i don't know why they tried a constructed defence style game mode using conquest style points/capture locations, i would have thought a 'base race' style system where players can permanently upgrade their bases for better defence would have been a much better fit(if you've never heard of base race look it up, it's an interesting concept)
Found a clip of an enemy territory mod
Rubbish quality but still can see how it works, like capture the flag but capturing enemy supplies lets you build upgrades to your base.

ElliotLH · June 20, 2019 8:38AM

Speed-wise I think they're OK - if you want to build quicker then you can just take the Support combat role which offers that. However as others have said durability could possibly do with being upped a little bit.

xKusagamix · June 20, 2019 10:53AM

Fortification need to be a bit faster and more durable.

Things like building shallow trenchs on both sides of C flag in Aerodome is really nice but it's too slow and risky.

PvtJohnTowle · June 20, 2019 11:04AM

mike2289 said:

Just a suggestion. I think if you can build fortifications a little quicker i think it will incentivise more people to do it . Theres times where there is no cover what so ever and needs to be fortified im usually the only one doing the dirty work lol.

No if you want to build fortifications quicker, go support. Simples.

Also why can't we build concrete bunkers? They are present on Twisted Steel at the end of the bridge. That would be cool .

sabootheshaman said:

JUJAMAKILL wrote: »
I would like them to last a bit longer and give a bit more resistance. I think this is half the reason why most people don't bother building them. 1 piat and you have just wasted your time.

Actually been thinking that maybe support should be able to build something stronger like concrete that can’t be penetrated.

Seems the base of the towers in outpost are.

The concrete bunkers are destroyable on Twisted Steel , they are made of concrete. They can be penetrated. It would be ridiculous to have a concrete bunker that can't be penetrated (indestructible) as enemies would congregate inside knowing they are protected fully, similar to what happens on BF1 Monte Grappa underground bunkers.

sabootheshaman · June 20, 2019 11:44AM

@PvtJohnTowle I didn’t mean indestructible. I meant no bullet penetration. Sandbags take some penetration.

Hehe penetration. 🍆

NuttysKunKs · June 20, 2019 11:48AM

It’s not so much the building time. It’s the delay after it building it for it to spawn which I find frustrating.

ElliotLH · June 20, 2019 11:53AM

NuttysKunKs said:

It’s not so much the building time. It’s the delay after it building it for it to spawn which I find frustrating.

Are you standing in the red-zone? It seems pretty quick at spawning to me. Or perhaps it's just subjective.

Tullzter · June 20, 2019 1:14PM

We definitely need new classes then for building: Foreman with a concrete finisher perk, maybe a Roofer with a hardened steel perk, and definitely a liaison officer to be the middle man between the player and the zoning commission, make sure that all the paperwork is filled out

ElliotLH · June 20, 2019 1:31PM

Tullzter said:

We definitely need new classes then for building: Foreman with a concrete finisher perk, maybe a Roofer with a hardened steel perk, and definitely a liaison officer to be the middle man between the player and the zoning commission, make sure that all the paperwork is filled out

Can I be the class that leans on a shovel while the other classes do the work? Failing that I want to play with use the pneumatic drill.

ragnarok013 · June 20, 2019 1:59PM

I don't want them to be faster since I don't want huge fortifications showing up in the blink of an eye like one sees in Fortnight. Fortifications are a double edged sword, I can't count the amount of time I'm trying to engage the enemy or even enter\leave an objective and someone blocks me in\out or blocks my field of fire. In fact I hope when RSP drops we can turn off fortifications for a classic BF CQ feel.

Mangrey · June 20, 2019 2:34PM

Well players are suppose to DEFENDE the damn things and dont leave them....... and remove the damn tnaks and planes from the game mode then the game mode might be alittle fun

ninjapenquinuk · June 20, 2019 2:46PM

Building fortifications in modes like Conquest is pointless anyway seeing as no one defends the points and you are as likely to aid the enemy as your own team.

Kattegat_Twin · June 20, 2019 2:53PM

One reason to not make fortifications more durable is this:

All the time, I see a bunch of guys, myself included, fully fortifying a point after we take it. Cool. But then everyone runs off to the next point, I stay and defend alone, die at some point and then the enemy has a free, fully fortified base. All that building for what? Imagine the fortifications were stronger. How would you take it back?

Or, actually, maybe stronger fortifications would encourage people to defend them more, for that same reason?

Nah, of course they wouldn't. Nobody understands the concept of defending in this game.

trip1ex · June 20, 2019 3:22PM

I was going to say Fortifications need to be permanently torn down.

The reason few build them is because it's boring to do so and fairly pointless. Speeding it up would make it whacky like Fortnite and wouldn't fit this game.

Imagine destroying something and then a second later it is back up.

Astr0damus · June 20, 2019 4:22PM

Matty101yttam said:

a rock or a sandbag doesn't pick sides so whether it is built or not built doesn't really impact the outcome.

I agree.. I have said this before: There is no sense in fortifying a flag when it will change hands in 3 minutes and now all the effort you put in to fortifying the objective is now working against you.

If anything, when the flag changes hands, the fortifications should disappear, and then if you take it back, whatever was there before would be back. This would make it worth doing at least (as unrealistic as this sounds it is not as unrealistic as reviving someone with a needle that just took a tank round to the chest)

Fortification needs to be quicker

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links