• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
rule303

Mass Sandbagging

79 posts in this topic

Very interesting thread........I don't play infantry much, but I have enjoyed people exploring "the art of the possible" with the new PPOs. I actually think they are so new that players are still"hey I wonder if I could take a tank trap and put it over here" rather then deliberately placing something to exploit the game. It's just too new IMHO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, delems said:

*** You try having about 5-6 people total on, and  then defend a town and then when you see EWS in 2-3 other towns

And there is the problem.  It has nothing to do with PPOs, or distance to bldgs blah blah blah.

We are once again looking at the wrong thing - "OMG, he's bleeding on the floor - get more towels to wipe it up faster......  HINT: stop the bleeding first and there won't be blood on the floor"

Do you get it, rats allow extreme over pop - that is the problem; nothing else is the problem.  Fix the problem, limit the amount of over pop that can be in game.

 

 

*** The more the game explores the PPO possibilities, which is a really good area to explore, the more issues like this will occur. I really think it may pay to very clearly indicate that this kind of non-PvP, unintended, blockage of player movement is both undesirable and unacceptable. 

It is not undesirable or unacceptable - completely false imo.  The more the game explores PPO possibilities, which is a really good area to explore (glad you see that), the more issues like this will  occur... like what?  Varied play, more tactical obstacles, interesting challenges, random terrain changes, additional cover for infantry; more fun?  Really, you are against more fun?

In the field, yes! Give us trenches, barbed wire, tank traps etc 

But seriously, these items cannot interfere with a player's ability to spawn in and engage in the PvP game. Trapping units in the vehicle spawn with PPO is as unacceptable as preventing spawning at a FB Inf tent

i get players want variation, want alternative tactics and want to reward ingenuity but in a game, there are limits. Other players must be physically allowed to spawn in and enter the fray; if we blow them up seconds later, that's war. But to deny them the opportunity to get into the battle using an unintended feature of a defensive PPO is clearly an undesirable exploit of an insufficiently understood element. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kilemall said:

The problem is that if you are down to just 5-6 people, just detailing one to anti-PPO work gives up 2-3 facilities automatically and eliminates being able to react with the whole of the spawnlist, even worse and more surely then a full on camp.

 

It's another example of advantage overpop especially in low density times.

 

Pitiful.

Then the problem isn't PPOs, it's tz3 population

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, sydspain said:

Then the problem isn't PPOs, it's tz3 population

It's both. 2v1 is being worked on separately. PPOs designed to allow use that's either unrealistic or game-marketing-destructive, or both in this instance, need fixing ASAP.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jwilly said:

PPOs designed to allow game-marketing-destructive use need fixing ASAP.

I do not understand this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making a tool available to the overpop side that allows them, via their extra manpower, to block the underpop side from even getting into gameplay has the potential to cause...and my lay guess from past discussions would be, the likelihood of causing...players that have been willing to "tough out" playing on the underpop side to leave.

In a given TZ, the loss of a few usually-overpop-side customers is bad, but the loss of that same number of customers from the underpop side is much worse.

Or at least, that's how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I understood that, the part that I quoted was a bit hard to grasp the way it was written.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again:  sandbags were supposed to get destroyed with 2-3 AP shells if they arent that is a bug/sudden design change.

The rest of the complaints are more just about TZ3 overpop tbh.

Should we be suprised that certain players are exploring exploits? No. If you have players who for years have been focused on maximum effectiveness without regard for the other side/game health in general we shouldn't be surpised they try to exploit this too:)

Edited by monsjoex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, monsjoex said:

Again:  sandbags were supposed to get destroyed with 2-3 AP shells if they arent that is a bug/sudden design change.

The rest of the complaints are more just about TZ3 overpop tbh.

Should we be suprised that certain players are exploring exploits? No. If you have players who for years have been focused on maximum effectiveness without regard for the other side/game health in general we shouldn't be surpised they try to exploit this too:)

I don't think they should be destroyed by AP easily it should take more rounds, HE should be what makes more damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is far from the truth, Sydspain. Underpopulation is a separate problem that only slightly makes the problem worse. The underlying problem is that people are being blocked inside spawns by PPO's. It's a form of griefing designed to prevent someone playing the game. It's absolutely annoying, and completely unreasonable to think that sort of strategy should be viable. Even if it doesn't take much (except it does at current due to the ridiculous damage models that clearly meant they weren't ready to be implemented) to destroy PPO's, it still is annoying and wastes time for the spawn blocked side to then have to RTB, grab a rifleman or engineer, go over to the spawn blocked sandbags, blow them up, RTB again, and then get the unit you were planning on getting in the first place back out.

Just make PPO's have a short 100m minimum distance to enemy flags to place. It isn't hard to do, PPO's were clearly designed to be DEFENSIVE in nature to establish ZOC's, and therefore shouldn't be able to be placed on enemy flags in an offensive manner/spawn blocking manner. Plain and simple.

Edited by rule303

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Which thing were you intimating with that comment, exactly?

Hmmmm, i know when i was part of a large squad back in the day, i got tired of capping at will and outnumbering my opponents. I decided to play the other side when a guy named Badger formed a squad to help neutralize the imbalance. While it did suck getting gangbanged for awhile, we stayed with it and recruited a bunch of players into that squad. Posting in the forums repeatedly about a problem CRS has no solution for is counter productive. Recruit players in that timezone, organize, merge squads, and do whatever it takes to grow the playerbase. I know its easier said than done, but it can be done. It's unfortunate that some players love the thrill of totally demoralizing their opponents no matter the consequences. There is no magic wand that will/can be waved to cure this problem that's been a plague for as long as i've played(2003)...................Don't worry about this map or the next.Organize new players and recruit in the forums. Its hard work and people that decide to do this will need to stick with it because you know some squad is going to change sides next map and then the problem will seem to go away for a map or two...I really wish i could get my old @ss up to help the causeS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complaining about population imbalance is probably pointless. 

 

Conplaining about an obvious exploit of PPO placement is not 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't there vehicle-stopping poles outside of all spawns and CPs?  You know, in order to prevent them being blocked by vehicles?  

Isn't this going along that same line of thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, delems said:

*** You try having about 5-6 people total on, and  then defend a town and then when you see EWS in 2-3 other towns

And there is the problem.  It has nothing to do with PPOs, or distance to bldgs blah blah blah.

We are once again looking at the wrong thing - "OMG, he's bleeding on the floor - get more towels to wipe it up faster......  HINT: stop the bleeding first and there won't be blood on the floor"

Do you get it, rats allow extreme over pop - that is the problem; nothing else is the problem.  Fix the problem, limit the amount of over pop that can be in game.

This is my understanding as well.  

 

The game ceases to properly function in extreme overpop, just like how no HC online results in the game ceasing to function properly.  This issue needs to be looked at with the same level of fervor that 1.36 was looked at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I think that this problem could easily be resolved. ight now it looks like PPOs are set to a 5-10 feet distance from objects. We know from the past that FRUs could be given a minimum distance to an enemy fortification.

Just give PPOs a minimum distance to enemy owned spawns, like the AB of say, 25-50 meters. This would be a LOT closer than the old FRUs, doesn't allow people to build them right next to or inside the enemy's spawn areas, and prevents any question of exploits.


S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pbveteran said:

I don't think they should be destroyed by AP easily it should take more rounds, HE should be what makes more damage.

Aka lets have axis t0 destroy them but not allies british tanks? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Silky said:

In the field, yes! Give us trenches, barbed wire, tank traps etc 

But seriously, these items cannot interfere with a player's ability to spawn in and engage in the PvP game. Trapping units in the vehicle spawn with PPO is as unacceptable as preventing spawning at a FB Inf tent

i get players want variation, want alternative tactics and want to reward ingenuity but in a game, there are limits. Other players must be physically allowed to spawn in and enter the fray; if we blow them up seconds later, that's war. But to deny them the opportunity to get into the battle using an unintended feature of a defensive PPO is clearly an undesirable exploit of an insufficiently understood element. 

 

I agree with this, this should be viewed just as bad as the blocking of a FB Veh spawn imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pbveteran said:

I don't think they should be destroyed by AP easily it should take more rounds, HE should be what makes more damage.

Lucky for the Brits eh? Had three a13s camping a FMS  pounding it to try and drop it. All ap, did not work from 20m. We wanted it down and still had to bring up infantry to drop it. I rtb with 11 ap left. H39 HE, near useless vrs sandbags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life, a medium sized wheeled vehicle or any tracked vehicle driving slowly and steadily into a stack of sandbags will tip it over, rupture the bags, and push the sand or dirt into a distributed layer on the ground. A stack of sandbags has no durability at all against shredding, such as by impinging vehicle parts such as tracks. So how is it that a game tank is stopped by a few sandbags?

A real life sandbag will stop a medium caliber lead or FMJ bullet, or a shell or grenade splinter. The kinetic and/or explosive energy of even a 20mm shell will burst the bag and distribute the contents. So how is it that a game 37mm or 40mm cannon round has no effect?

The game should be realistic when possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, delems said:

*** You try having about 5-6 people total on, and  then defend a town and then when you see EWS in 2-3 other towns

And there is the problem.  It has nothing to do with PPOs, or distance to bldgs blah blah blah.

We are once again looking at the wrong thing - "OMG, he's bleeding on the floor - get more towels to wipe it up faster......  HINT: stop the bleeding first and there won't be blood on the floor"

Do you get it, rats allow extreme over pop - that is the problem; nothing else is the problem.  Fix the problem, limit the amount of over pop that can be in game.

 

 

*** The more the game explores the PPO possibilities, which is a really good area to explore, the more issues like this will occur. I really think it may pay to very clearly indicate that this kind of non-PvP, unintended, blockage of player movement is both undesirable and unacceptable. 

It is not undesirable or unacceptable - completely false imo.  The more the game explores PPO possibilities, which is a really good area to explore (glad you see that), the more issues like this will  occur... like what?  Varied play, more tactical obstacles, interesting challenges, random terrain changes, additional cover for infantry; more fun?  Really, you are against more fun?

In one sense I agree that the population disparity/effect issues both make this worse and are the more serious problem, but in another suck butt play is suck butt play and needs to be coded out.

Not 400m like spawns, definitely closer as the fight wins territory closer, but definitely 50-100m distance, not in it.

If one takes the AB and loads it up with PPOs that render it unusable after ownership has changed, that's different.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jwilly said:

In real life, a medium sized wheeled vehicle or any tracked vehicle driving slowly and steadily into a stack of sandbags will tip it over, rupture the bags, and push the sand or dirt into a distributed layer on the ground. A stack of sandbags has no durability at all against shredding, such as by impinging vehicle parts such as tracks. So how is it that a game tank is stopped by a few sandbags?

A real life sandbag will stop a medium caliber lead or FMJ bullet, or a shell or grenade splinter. The kinetic and/or explosive energy of even a 20mm shell will burst the bag and distribute the contents. So how is it that a game 37mm or 40mm cannon round has no effect?

The game should be realistic when possible. 

Destroyable state of sandbags that change them to scattered on the ground after sufficient collider/vehicle impact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sydspain said:

I still don't see the problem with the sandbags...they can be destroyed in less than 30 seconds

Because these people will whine about anything and everything. Proof is in this thread. 

There's a WOLRD of difference in putting sandbags in front of a spawn and putting an ATG emplacement where an FB spawn will appear, yet some people in here equate the two lol. 

"exploit exploit exploit" LOL, get a grip and destroy them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they can't actually be destroyed easily, Sydspain. As said before, shooting sandbags with AP and HE shells with most vehicles clearly does absolutely nothing, which I imagine is a bug (anything 20mm or bigger, both AP and HE would in reality easily break a sandbag wall down with a single shot,) it also means that you need to first RTB your unit, you then need to select a unit that is capable of destroying the sandbag, go over to the sandbag, destroy the sandbag, then RTB again, and then respawn your unit and get it out to the field. It wastes valuable time in a game where when the poop hits the fan (such as AB rushes or CPs being capped,) you need to have an instant response in a matter of seconds. It's also again, extremely annoying, and clearly shouldn't exist in the game, and clearly wasn't intended to occur by CRS. PPO's are defensive structures to build ZOC's, they shouldn't be capable of being used to physically block a spawn point such as an AB or a Depot. It is no different to blocking an FB in any way.

Also, Mosizlak, I find it extremely ironic that you sit here saying that we're all endlessly finding something to whine about, yet I specifically remember you as being one of the ones who yet again were complaining about the REALISTIC existence of Matilda II's in Tier 0. Except the only difference here is that we are, "whining," about the exploit of a bug or feature that was clearly not intended to be possible by CRS, rather than someone having a rare neater toy than you that is sometimes hard to kill, as it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, rule303 said:

 

Also, Mosizlak, I find it extremely ironic that you sit here saying that we're all endlessly finding something to whine about, yet I specifically remember you as being one of the ones who yet again were complaining about the REALISTIC existence of Matilda II's in Tier 0. Except the only difference here is that we are, "whining," about the exploit of a bug or feature that was clearly not intended to be possible by CRS, rather than someone having a rare neater toy than you that is sometimes hard to kill, as it should be.

Really? Go find that, I never said that about the matilda. I dare you to find that.

 

Keep making up crap if you like, but no one is buying it, especially me when I never said it. Try again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.