fidd

Limiting missions by type of unit

Unit limitation by mission   5 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like to see this?

    • Would you like to see this as laid out
    • Would you oppose it as laid out
    • If undecided, what would you add or change to make it acceptable to you (please comment in thread)
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

8 posts in this topic

For a game that prides itself on "teamwork", there is a glaring problem with missions, to whit:

Once a town has multiple missions applied, all possible coherence of command by ML's is rendered useless by the fragmented nature of all the missions. For experienced players it's possible to see that missions originating from FB's or AB's may spawn armour, but there's nothing on the mission list to discriminate between such armour-spawnable missions and the usual pile of FMS or Depot missions.

I propose:

That it be made possible for the ML making the mission to nominate the mission as "Infantry", or "Armour" or "ATG"  or "AAA" or "Mixed unit" with other classifications being added over time. Each would have a single pictorial icon indicating if such a limitation had been applied. Note that because a "limitation" had been applied, it wouldn't preclude spawning an infantry unit on a pure "armour"  mission, but it would involve a spawn-delay (without reservation) of (say) a minute, to dissuade players from spawning into the "wrong" mission. However, no such delay would occur until there are , (say) 4 missions originating from the FB or town. The ML can change the nominated units on the fly. The idea here is to allow for defenders to react quickly to a sudden attack, but to be able to gradually differentiate missions one from another, as time goes on. Attackers might choose to differentiate theirs from the word go. Please  also note that there's no limit on the number of missions of any given type.

The idea is to give some power to ML's to influence what can be spawned from a mission, in a fashion that is visible to players before they spawn in, so that one doesn't have everything spawning on every mission by default. So, one could have a mission purely for mortars, with one ML and a dedicated task, another perhaps for ATG''s with another task, and so forth; however, not with limitations so severe that they impede, initially, the ability of players to crash-out from an AB put suddenly under threat.

In short, the idea is to encourage, but not absolutely enforce, players to spawn in units consistent with what the ML has in mind to accomplish, whilst also allowing the ML to amend the units spawnable as time goes on; whilst also not causing undue difficulties for reacting to a sudden attack.

Edited by fidd
spelling mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i i'd like the idea, mind you it would work best in a squad or a group that plays together a lot.


Playerbase wise as a whole though, i dunno?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My estimate is that if an ML has players electing to choose his mission, because he's calling for, in effect, the units that they're seeking to play, a more reasonable chance exists that they'll work together as a team to a particular purpose, rather than missions simply being a necessary hoop to jump through to find the desired unit to spawn - afterwhich all notion of working to a common purpose immediately leaves by the nearest available window! One could argue, that it's more likely that players will form bonds - call it what you will - later resulting in recruitment to squads if they keep operating together on the same types of missions. "We should recruit Bloggz, he's a first-class xyz" For that to happen, I suggest, something needs to change in terms of the universally "generic" missions we have now.

To my mind, the reason this hasn't happened until now, is that defending players, in particular, would have a complete fit if they were unable to swiftly spawn what's needed to set-up a defense in the face of a sudden attack from an FB. The cap-timer/AO goes some way to mitigating the "suddent attack" situation, but it often isn't helpful if the town is effectively camped before the 1st defender is spawned in. Hence the need to qualify the unit limitations in missions only being enacted once (I chose) 4 missions from that FB or Town have been placed. This qualification allows players to see which mission is calling for what unit, whilst not applying restrictions likely to cause trouble to defending players in the event of  a suddent camp attempt.

Ideally, all missions in the active mission-list, would be sortable by "units requested", so that a player wishing to play armour, for example, could immediately see all those missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see this working is that you might have a "mission of mortars" from an AB, or a "AAA" mission at an FB, so that over time players who like the nominated units will naturally gravitate to those missions nominating the units they wish to play. By virtue of the fact that the ML has called for these specific units, there's a good bet that he'll have a particular objective in mind - for example not running headlong into town, but protecting an FMS with ATG's, or, defending the FB from air-attack, or, cutting a resupply road, or, capturing specific CP's, or, running a paratroop drop to high-ground to mark targets for an attack in the town below..... the possibilities are endless, and, I would suggest, offer opportunities for better gameplay as players more frequently gravitate to missions calling for the kit they wish to spawn, for a purpose that makes sense, in concert with other likeminded players.

Isn't that the full potential of the game?

The reasons this idea has been unworkable in the past, is that it's too restrictive in the face of a pre-camp, for defending players to spawn in sufficiently quickly to react. The new element to this idea - the unit limitations not being enacted until 4 missions + have been posted from that FB, or, from or at a Town, gets around that difficultly, which in the past, I could see no solution for. If I'm correct in the likely effects of this idea, one would start to see, instead of 1 unit-type undertaking a role, rather 6 or 7 of them, all cooperating. to a specific task. It would also more seamlessly integrate green and blue-tags with a wider squad driven op. This is game-changing stuff.

I'm genuinely astounded that this isn't, it would seem a very popular idea, and would love to hear from people why precisely, it isn't for them, if they've come to that conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about what merlin said upthread. I think there's a possibility, it'd help players unknown to each other form new bonds - and that social side is gold-dust in a game such as ours. So you might find a group of players who love playing AAA and keep gravitating to missions calling for them. As these same guys end up on the same missions, they start co-operating and chatting in between waves of EA. Before long you have a squad formed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree Fidd, in a similar vein, years ago there was some good posts by one of the Euro players that talked about       having mission "templates" that were pre-defined lists of units that would be filled as players logged into a location

You might join a brigade to see a mission that is asking for an "FB busting team" that consists of a truck driver  and 4 engineers, or a CP clearing team that consists of 4 SMGs, etc

Right now missions are based around the spawn lists which tend to be utilized by the rareness or coolness of the kit  rather than being appropriate for the task...players exhaust the stuff they like to play FIRST then settle for what is left  rather than choosing the type that is most appropriate for the task at hand

The same principle could be used for armour or aircraft etc...      

A side benefit of this type of system is that it limits the ability of the same player using up all the available instances of a particular unit, as only a certain number would be allocated to each unit       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd not seen the "template idea" must have been away from the game at that time. I think I''d just prefer page on the interface where one could rank your 10 mos popular units in order, and thereafter if you chose to spawn-in via that page, the GUI would present you with the missions specifically calling for those units highest on your list, first, and thereafter those that merely include ones from your list, rather than being specifically rquested. The usual aways of spawning in would run in parallel, however, if an ML has limited his mission by unit, and your desired unit is not on his list at that time, then you'd need to find another mission, or make one yourself.

The point is that it would tend to help guide players into missions sufficiently limited in scope that the ML has a chance to influence proceedings, with players who have self-selected to join his mission over others. Although we talk freely about "organisation and tactics"  - never has a phrase been so ill-used - these days the sheer variety of units that typically spawn on a given mission utterly preclude anything more nuanced than ant-trails and pig-piles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.