First source, the one with the gates and destructing them. 45:50 View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyrjqai5wLs&index=6&list=UUxH-BQF2CRQV6lXTf41xEeg
Most buildings in space marine multiplayer have very high roofs. You can't really see the limitations there because most of the *buildings* are gigantic open spaces.
So you want to make the assault class useless, essentially? The whole point of taking the jump pack is that you can get into places that the others can't, and denying them that ability doesn't prevent assault switching, but just causes the alternative: everyone mass switching to tactical/heavy because otherwise you're just sitting on your thumbs. And again, assault does not "defeat the entire purpose" of the walls, as it still keeps out those ranged classes easily and it just means that defenders have to deal with one threat rather than getting an easy ride against everyone. Not to mention that your ideas on how armies should take down a fortress don't work. You can't stave them out, as all the soldiers don't require food, sleep, or long term healing, and it has been mentioned by the devs that basic ammunition will not run out (and even if it did, having to rely on the defenders running out of ammo would probably break the attacker's interest before it actually happened), Drop pods and teleportation are not going to be at launch, and when they are added it should be remembered that only space marines have those in any large amounts (and maybe not even chaos space marines, if iD are in that same mind set of 'we can't let have chaos have any of the good things SM have' that GW does) and would leave the xeno armies severely hampered, while stealth unit would still have to wait on the designated gates of the fortress to be knocked down, with the only known stealth classes behind a paywall and would be a greater cost if killed before then. And I ultimately believe that requiring a disproportionate cost to take the capture point in fortress creates a less tactical game, and encourages merely zerg rushing the bases at the beginning of each restart and those that succeed will win the campaign simply through camping, and I want a more proactive game. If that means that fortress aren't the be-all and end-all, then I'm fine with that.
I'd say just keep the 3 point bursts that each have a regeneration time, so they cant be spammed, and a cooldown after using all 3. That should be enough.
Also, the game Space Marine is not the game Eternal Crusade. So what you have seen in Space Marine is not a valide source of information. "In Space Marine there were never 100 men in a battle at the same time, so there won't be over 100 here."
I really agree with this. Pointing at Assault packs for rendering walls useless, is not valid. I share alot of same points as Uzbolt, but isen't this the whole idea of a Jumppack? I have seen the fortresses in 40K and there is no way a Assault could scale over, but... This is a good example. Void the titans though. Imagine the first wall is a outpost wall. Look at the right side, it's destructable. There should be destructable entry points. Not like "bring the whole goddamn wall down" but a alternative place, the attackers can strike from, which is not the main entry point. That would give a edge to Attackers. You have to think of it like this, even if it's a Outpost or a Fortress they will be populated. Atleast the ones in the frontlines will or there wherever the War is going on. At a Initial assualt, how much I'd love it, I don't think everyone will man the walls and prepare defences and make it look all scenic. There will be some outside the gate, vehicles, walls and such. Attackers will come straight ahead or around (I think many Fortresses or outposts are built along cliffs) Already there, the defenders will have a huge advantage. You have to get into a fortified "castle", jumppacks should be able to provide such. In a huge siege, it would be good to have a clan to distract the right wall perhaps and try to take out the people manning it. dAs for the Fortress, I don't think the walls will be so big, but there should be somewhat the same. Not that Jumppacks could jump right in, but you'd have to think of another advantage the attackers could take. For a siege with much less people as you say, which I think will only happen if people sneak past several outposts and try to take one at core. Say you're 15 eldar. Half of them man walls and the other half running around the base. A clan of 15 people decide it's a good idea running or boosting towards a fortress and jumping over the walls. I think it's a good idea and a good tactic and I don't understand what you mean with "It renders Eldar unplayable and gives them no reason to play". A siege like that with 15v10 or so, the outcome would be decided by each player that chooses a certain class and their position. You can't say, A outpost will fall if 10 people come with jumppacks. I can see the issue, but I wouldn't even like to defend if it was just straight up meatgrind everyone at one gate. I'd like to defend and attack more "live" or "actively" (Don't even know if that's a real word) like the defence and attack was alot more exciting and gave you multiple choices you can plan here and there. Even if it's a small siege. Remember, Gameplay over Lore. It's a game. Even though sieges in 40k is Insane and require so many vehicles and manpower and planning, it still needs to be realisticly placed in a game that needs to be Fun.
First off, I can't see the picture. Secondly, I very much agree with you. I mean, the jump classes are called Assault for a reason, no? You should see mostly Assaults (Using SM as a reference) on the attackers side, and mostly devestators on the defenders side, with an equal ammount of Tacticals. These characters fill the role of attack, and defence, and should be used as such.
This was one of (many) big gripes with Warhammer Online for much of its lifespan. In the early days of keep sieges, melee characters were relegated to the role of banging on the door (if you were a tank) or standing around out of enemy range and twiddling your thumbs (if you were MDPS). Only the ranged classes and healers had a role that was remotely interesting on either side until the door came down. In the choke point in the very final room, once the last defensive line had been broken, melee had a slight advantage in combat. But fundamentally it was a dull experience being MDPS in keep sieges, watching everyone else do the critical work and get the XP for it. Then they decided to allow the stealth melee classes to breach the back door, which hurled balance all to hell not just for active defense, but also because it allowed ninja captures of keeps. So in came the deadbolt upgrade to lock the door again, putting things straight back to the original situation as anyone with more than two brain cells to put together immediately purchased it on taking a keep. Because there was only one real path through the keeps, and one objective to be taken/defended, the most effective strategy was the zerg rush to capture the keep before defenders and reinforcements could react. It got slightly more 'tactical' when assaulting the larger fortresses, because of the hideous volume of people and firepower trapped in a small, enclosed chokepoint, but it was problematic to say the least. What would work a heck of a lot better is if defensive structures can be attacked in multiple different ways, with incentives for defenders to hold off those multiple different fronts rather than just retreating to the be-all-and-end-all single capture point. Deciding how best to attack based on the forces you have with you, and what you can determine of the defenders, would be a much better experience than "batter door down, rush first choke point room, rush second choke point room, win or lose".
