• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
ZEBBEEE

Updating capture flag "building"

38 posts in this topic

I was wondering if the new team already confirmed their ability to update buildings ingame ?

If so, in my opinion, we should replace the flag building by someting "open air" based on a small statue/fontain around which sandbags are set up. Still using the building pattern though, like (very roughly) displayed in the pic bellow.

Expected advantages :

It would give more weight to "support" units (snipers, mortars, air units), and allow a better multi-directional defense setup.

It would also give more weight to the tactical use of surounding objects/buildings.

A similar reasoning could be applied to depots, which imho should also just be an open air sandbaged area with an observation tower.

8EWzcz.png

Edited by Zebbeee
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true. They are in need of a rebuild. Your design looks cool. Maybe a 2nd floor aswell though :cool: !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering if the new team already confirmed their ability to update buildings ingame ?

If so, in my opinion, we should replace the flag building by someting "open air" based on a small statue/fontain around which sandbags are set up. Still using the building pattern though, like (very roughly) displayed in the pic bellow.

Expected advantages :

It would give more weight to "support" units (snipers, mortars, air units), and allow a better multi-directional defense setup.

It would also give more weight to the tactical use of surounding objects/buildings.

A similar reasoning could be applied to depots, which imho should also just be an open air sandbaged area with an observation tower.

8EWzcz.png

Nice one zebbeee ! Hell yes, that could bring some awesome multi-arms ops :)

BTW, thank you CRS for allowing F2P access all units !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be so much better than expecting MOST players to routinely patrol and check CPs.

Spoiler Alert: THEY EFFING DON'T.

You work like cray to lib a town, repelling a CRAZY assault to nothing, and then when people shift to other objectives, ONE player caps the frigging spawn CP because nobody bothered to check it.

Ugh.

Open air cap areas would be great to fling 'nades into. Definitely not made with short walls though; you should have SOME cover when capping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

area capture.

but I like the christmas trees in these drawings. maybe CRS could bring those back one day too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's the purpose, multi arms fights (planes, mortars, snipers)

Mortars should however have a much more important dispersion rate, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there's the rub. Too open and you're easy meat. Cappers need protection too, especially from the spawners in the building next door.

However, there are other flags that have no neighboring spawn, and so cover is not as vital, though still quite advantageous when considering the potential threats mentioned by the above posters.

Again however, consider the potential for a combination of an open flag, and the development of more ppos, especially those made for cities, which the Rats have stated is their intent iirc. An open flag - simply a flag on a section of pavement - used for the city flag, factory flags, etc., combined with the ability to place ppos such as mg towers, sandbags, barricades, would lead to what the op has in mind, but with a much greater potential variety, and so much better for player interest imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, there's the rub. Too open and you're easy meat. Cappers need protection too, especially from the spawners in the building next door.

However, there are other flags that have no neighboring spawn, and so cover is not as vital, though still quite advantageous when considering the potential threats mentioned by the above posters.

Again however, consider the potential for a combination of an open flag, and the development of more ppos, especially those made for cities, which the Rats have stated is their intent iirc. An open flag - simply a flag on a section of pavement - used for the city flag, factory flags, etc., combined with the ability to place ppos such as mg towers, sandbags, barricades, would lead to what the op has in mind, but with a much greater potential variety, and so much better for player interest imo.

^^^wins^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This gave me an idea, and it sounds complex but really it isn't and it would make WORLD of difference.

Okay, you know how infantry can place PPOs, right? Good. First, we zone a fairly large open building space as the "capture zone." Easy.

Then we leave it completely empty. Instead of adding all those barrels, sandbags, ect, CRS creates a new series of PPOs of barrels, sandbags, etc. When an infantryman is inside the capture zone their default PPO changes into one of the new ones that can be placed inside the capture zone.

With me so far? So let's say basic rifleman or SMG gets a barrel PPO that can be placed on the ground. A machinegunner or ATR gets a sandbag PPO with a narrow slot in the middle for a bipod weapon. A engineer, being the strongest character for this job, would be able to install an actual roof and fill in exposed openings in lieu of a PPO (meaning it would simply "unhide" normally disabled parts of the building mesh).

Now why is this better than static fortifications? Do you really need to ask? Our current CP lament is precisely that everything is in a fixed position, which means there are basically four spots to defend from and four methods of clearing people out of them (three of which involve exploiting lag). It's just rock-paper-scissors. It's a predefined, linear formula and that is always boring.

But make the space large enough and add PPOs for the defend widgets and you've just turned the entire dynamic into a raffle barrel. Will the defenders have the barrel to right or left of the door? Will there be sandbags facing the north or south? Will it be exposed from above or not? The defenders could be set up anywhere inside there, facing any direction with any number or type of defense widgets set up inside in any location.

No more rock-paper-scissors, kids. When you take the shackles off defense positions you take them off the attack methods as well. It becomes near infinite in it's potential randomness, and randomness is never boring (just ask Las Vegas).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This gave me an idea, and it sounds complex but really it isn't and it would make WORLD of difference.

Okay, you know how infantry can place PPOs, right? Good. First, we zone a fairly large open building space as the "capture zone." Easy.

Then we leave it completely empty. Instead of adding all those barrels, sandbags, ect, CRS creates a new series of PPOs of barrels, sandbags, etc. When an infantryman is inside the capture zone their default PPO changes into one of the new ones that can be placed inside the capture zone.

With me so far? So let's say basic rifleman or SMG gets a barrel PPO that can be placed on the ground. A machinegunner or ATR gets a sandbag PPO with a narrow slot in the middle for a bipod weapon. A engineer, being the strongest character for this job, would be able to install an actual roof and fill in exposed openings in lieu of a PPO (meaning it would simply "unhide" normally disabled parts of the building mesh).

Now why is this better than static fortifications? Do you really need to ask? Our current CP lament is precisely that everything is in a fixed position, which means there are basically four spots to defend from and four methods of clearing people out of them (three of which involve exploiting lag). It's just rock-paper-scissors. It's a predefined, linear formula and that is always boring.

But make the space large enough and add PPOs for the defend widgets and you've just turned the entire dynamic into a raffle barrel. Will the defenders have the barrel to right or left of the door? Will there be sandbags facing the north or south? Will it be exposed from above or not? The defenders could be set up anywhere inside there, facing any direction with any number or type of defense widgets set up inside in any location.

No more rock-paper-scissors, kids. When you take the shackles off defense positions you take them off the attack methods as well. It becomes near infinite in it's potential randomness, and randomness is never boring (just ask Las Vegas).

Frogdeth, I think this is precisely what blggles just mentioned and I second that :)

Edited by Zebbeee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally have been suggesting something along a different path...it makes sense that there should be at least SOME capture buildings. Right now, every CP is always the same in almost every town.

What i think is that now that CRS will be able to add and change buildings, that they change up the buildings used for CPs...Some are the current one, some are the little two story jobs, sometimes it's the church...For the City CP, make it the actual tall hotel type building...

By making the CPs different in every town, then we change the style of play... capping a CP stops being a routine, because you never know where the attackers are or where the defenders are...

Variety could be the spice of capturing a town.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could devote some resources into changing the current model or manipulating it a certain way, though it has to fit on the current land as it is. So imagine updating the interior, top floor and bottom floor, should be do-able.

Draw up some more concepts and put some thought into it and we'll see what we can do.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, I'm pretty sure nobody in the history of warfare ever jumped from a tall building onto a house's roof two stories down and killed everyone on the top floor, and then captured that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL, I'm pretty sure nobody in the history of warfare ever jumped from a tall building onto a house's roof two stories down and killed everyone on the top floor, and then captured that area.

I agree...I wish there was a better way of exiting tha spawn building...IMO, Jumping that far should REALLY hurt a character.. a quarter damage at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some slightly different CP layouts. Sorry they are crude.

I really like Zebbee's layout, but think it would work better if the statue were replaced with a small covered building.

CP%20Idea_zpso6uv8ibj.jpg

FuelDumpCP_zpsygrwqduq.jpg

CommCP_zpsmt2z8uks.jpg

They aren't perfect, but I think they could be a start. I liked the idea of making them actual military targets to add flavor.

!S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these looks cool!

i think, we need slightly or litte more different CPs in different places, like city cp would be some place kind of police station building, then normal depots slightly different military building, like the oil/fuel dumps and so on... AB bunkers should be different kind, the new one what is built already, then current and maybe 1 or 2 other types of AB bunkers in different places..

ALSO make "special" buildings like different churches, add castle to Dinant and Gent if i remember right, they should be capturable, i think Dinant should get add of infantry/ATG/AA only spawn, the castle i mean :) these kind of capturable places makes more variety to the gameplay experience and i would really love to see that kind of stuff, VARIETY in all features and stuff!

here is the video of the castle it actually was in early versions. i dont understand why they took off these :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree with them being "open air" buildings honestly as mortars, planes and tanks would be able to camp them a hell of a lot worse than they do right now. Instead I think the CP building just needs to be.. well bigger. And not a "Fixed" building.

Some CPs are the houses we have now, some are massive 6 story apartments that have been occupied and used by the Allies\Axis as an HQ. Some are a barn house being used as a temporary forward base or command centre. Some are open air ammo dumps and you get the idea.

Honestly I would compromise on open air if we can have more variation between them, requiring different tactics to fight around and attack them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure I agree with them being "open air" buildings honestly as mortars, planes and tanks would be able to camp them a hell of a lot worse than they do right now. Instead I think the CP building just needs to be.. well bigger. And not a "Fixed" building.

Some CPs are the houses we have now, some are massive 6 story apartments that have been occupied and used by the Allies\Axis as an HQ. Some are a barn house being used as a temporary forward base or command centre. Some are open air ammo dumps and you get the idea.

Honestly I would compromise on open air if we can have more variation between them, requiring different tactics to fight around and attack them.

yeah, btw, maybe they would be partially open air buildings, or some of them would be blown different way, more or less with roof :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure I agree with them being "open air" buildings honestly as mortars, planes and tanks would be able to camp them a hell of a lot worse than they do right now. Instead I think the CP building just needs to be.. well bigger. And not a "Fixed" building.

Some CPs are the houses we have now, some are massive 6 story apartments that have been occupied and used by the Allies\Axis as an HQ. Some are a barn house being used as a temporary forward base or command centre. Some are open air ammo dumps and you get the idea.

Honestly I would compromise on open air if we can have more variation between them, requiring different tactics to fight around and attack them.

The concept of "area capture" must be brought to the next level and give advantage to the side with the best teamwork coordination. The best numbers too, indeed, but it would be a much better gaming experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Different types of buildings - YES YES YES! Having the buildings exactly the same leads to the same defensive points and the same attacks over and over again. The only ones which would be the same all the time would be ABs and airfields, which are major targets anyway.

2) Not in set locations - Have the side which captures the CP choose where to locate THEIR CP, similarly to placing a FRU. They could place it in any building in a certain radius around a set point, as long as it wasn't too close to another, already existing CP.

That way, the attacking force would literally have to do a building by building search, very similar to what was done in RL. That would lead to defensive ambushes and coordinated area attacks by the offensive side.

I'm getting all tingly, just imagining how much fun it would be to get into a battle like that. With the higher population coming from the Steam release, the word EPIC really starts coming to mind.

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commandeering or selecting CPs and Depots (addhoc barracks) with good placement rules (no depot in line of sight of the accompanying CP) would be a major improvement for sure.

In the meantime. Simply just a variety of CP interiors and Bunkers would go miles in replay ability. Once CRS turns it's eye to terrain it's the CPs and Depots and Bunkers and AB spawns and their composition and placement that are what I think CRS should look at first and alter when it comes to terrain. Then actual town layouts, followed by changes in the actual surrounding terrain along with additions, imho.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Different types of buildings - YES YES YES! Having the buildings exactly the same leads to the same defensive points and the same attacks over and over again. The only ones which would be the same all the time would be ABs and airfields, which are major targets anyway.

2) Not in set locations - Have the side which captures the CP choose where to locate THEIR CP, similarly to placing a FRU. They could place it in any building in a certain radius around a set point, as long as it wasn't too close to another, already existing CP.

That way, the attacking force would literally have to do a building by building search, very similar to what was done in RL. That would lead to defensive ambushes and coordinated area attacks by the offensive side.

I'm getting all tingly, just imagining how much fun it would be to get into a battle like that. With the higher population coming from the Steam release, the word EPIC really starts coming to mind.

-Irish

I'm with you except for #2 Irish.

My reasoning is that you have to consider that we're not just talking about destroying a PPO here. The CPs are coded into the city. They HAVE to be static, so that the system can verify the capture state in order to set timers for AB. AF and Docks capture, and similar situations. I can't imagine how anyone would be able to code a system where players can manually adjust the capture points every time that they take or retake a town.

While I can see how such an idea would work in concept, I doubt that it would be something that even most current game engines could pull off.

But that said, even if the CPs are all static in location, if the buildings all LOOK different, then it's still going to be harder to locate them. Right now I can spot a CP from way down the street. but imagine if each one looked different. Most players won't memorize every town, and will have to try to remember what the new CPs look like. And just the fact that the buildings would have different interior layouts will have a definitive impact on CP combat. Heck I believe that this alone would completely change the game for the better. If we have one issue that gives people a cookie cutter feel about the game, I KNOW that the universal CP design is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with you except for #2 Irish.

My reasoning is that you have to consider that we're not just talking about destroying a PPO here. The CPs are coded into the city. They HAVE to be static, so that the system can verify the capture state in order to set timers for AB. AF and Docks capture, and similar situations. I can't imagine how anyone would be able to code a system where players can manually adjust the capture points every time that they take or retake a town.

While I can see how such an idea would work in concept, I doubt that it would be something that even most current game engines could pull off.

But that said, even if the CPs are all static in location, if the buildings all LOOK different, then it's still going to be harder to locate them. Right now I can spot a CP from way down the street. but imagine if each one looked different. Most players won't memorize every town, and will have to try to remember what the new CPs look like. And just the fact that the buildings would have different interior layouts will have a definitive impact on CP combat. Heck I believe that this alone would completely change the game for the better. If we have one issue that gives people a cookie cutter feel about the game, I KNOW that the universal CP design is it.

I am not sure it is possible to make different CPs appear on the same building pattern. They would need to do it manually. so expecting hundreds of men hours.

Let's activate your imagination and propose 1 design that would fit . I am supporting open area capture to promote real area control.witha few cover though, which is already included in my initial suggestion.

Here is another design idea, combining open and closed areas :

mm0QPI.png

Edited by Zebbeee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.