10-13-2012 04:54 PM
10-13-2012 06:52 PM
I disagree. I like assault. Without outpost there is practically no way any attacking team would succeed. If you like all games ending in a draw, then get rid of outposts.
One of my biggest pet peeves about starhawk is how the gameplay in most modes (excluding zones) revolves around spawning in the main base and then traveling to the action (ie, lack of capturable bases or sustainable forward bases). In this mode players actually choose to spawn outside of the main base. I find that refreshing.
Also, don't forget that you can steal hawks and tanks from the attacking team (hacker). This at least gives you an option for hard to reach outposts.
10-13-2012 10:04 PM
10-13-2012 10:55 PM
10-13-2012 11:32 PM
10-14-2012 01:22 AM
10-14-2012 05:15 AM
I am surprised by the number of people who think getting rid of outposts is a good thing. Imagine how tedious gameplay would be without them. Spawn, get equipped, get vehicle, travel distance to the enemy's tiny circle that is surrounded by 13 turrets, 2 bunkers, 7 guys with shotty, maw, and grinders, then die. Rinse in repeat the entire game. That sounds awful to me... but a lot of you think ground pounder is fun also.
i get the concerns about outposts that cannot be reached by the other team. That seems like a reasonable concern, but you should always at least be able to hit it with a maw. Outpost that can be reached can be destroyed in under 3 seconds with a grinder. If an enemy spawns into your base he has only 3 rift, so he can not spawn another one without collecting rift or getting a kill first.
i think outpost are great for the game and I hope LBI doesn't take any of this seriously. If they made certain unreachable locations "no outpost zones", I would not argue. But any changes beyond that would be a mistake.
10-14-2012 09:13 AM