Di11on

Infantry Placed FRUs - Please no

49 posts in this topic

were the trucks as loud as they are now?

rats keep looking down on mobile spawns, why don't you guys just get rid of them. (not joking)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, major0noob said:

were the trucks as loud as they are now?

rats keep looking down on mobile spawns, why don't you guys just get rid of them. (not joking)

We don't look down on them, we analyze and attempt to improve them, kind of like our wives and girlfriends do to us ;)

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh, the RATS attitude toward all versions seems negative. even going so far as preferring them gone and driving into town.

 

even now with the FMS there're problems building up and being ignored since introduction. not getting any sense of analysis and improvement for the past 9 months.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FRUs right now are just camping death traps. I think at least 25% of the time I played recently I got killed by allied vets camping FRUs as I spwned in game. Kinda starting to miss the dynamism and inf action that went with inf-placed FRUs. If the problem was sappers/RPATs, well its simple : don't let them spwn from there anymore. Also it rewards gamey dual account bullcrap gameplay since after 16 years we still can't exit vehicles lol. If at least I could park my effing truck nearby and re-mount it when needed. 

Oh and if you really wanna kill this game, yeah lets go back to the pre spwn depot era where you had a mandatory 15 to 30mins ride before getting to combat, just to get the pleasure to get killed by some AI through 3 rows of bushes, or by the first rambo lmg around (ok there wasn't even LMGs back in the days but you get the point)...

Edited by Lob12
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lob12 said:

FRUs right now are just camping death traps. I think at least 25% of the time I played recently I got killed by allied vets camping FRUs as I spwned in game. Kinda starting to miss the dynamism and inf action that went with inf-placed FRUs. If the problem was sappers/RPATs, well its simple : don't let them spwn from there anymore. Also it rewards gamey dual account bullcrap gameplay since after 16 years we still can't exit vehicles lol. If at least I could park my effing truck nearby and re-mount it when needed. 

Oh and if you really wanna kill this game, yeah lets go back to the pre spwn depot era where you had a mandatory 15 to 30mins ride before getting to combat, just to get the pleasure to get killed by some AI through 3 rows of bushes, or by the first rambo lmg around (ok there wasn't even LMGs back in the days but you get the point)...

This is the exact reason I find myself only playing during squad nights when I know we are going to drop multiple FMS in the same area for overlapping coverage.  I don't disagree with the FMS change versus the Inf FRU.  Limiting the spawns to trucks makes terrain matter and gives the other side a real opportunity to intercept.  However, there are certainly some issues with camping that have been brought about. 

The only good answer I can think of is to allow multiple spawns on missions that can be slightly spread out to cover each other.  That would make it difficult for a single tank to completely shut down a spawn without being eaten by sappers and ATGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, place your FMS farther out and work your way in. Going straight in to minimum distance SHOULD be hard. Don't expect to live/succeed if you act with reckless abandon. Moderate your expectations of success according to the situation.

And yes, multiple FMS/mission would be a nice addition.

Share this post


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

Again, place your FMS farther out and work your way in. Going straight in to minimum distance SHOULD be hard. Don't expect to live/succeed if you act with reckless abandon. Moderate your expectations of success according to the situation.

And yes, multiple FMS/mission would be a nice addition.

not even minimum distance, sometimes there's only 1 FMS in entire game 1km+ out; and it's camped.

most of the pop gave up on setting FMS's after wasting soo much time, now only dedicated FMS builders bother.

 

keep telling people they're playing wrong... maybe tomorrow all the FMS's will stop being camped to oblivion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what can I say - that's one sorry tale. Certainly not my experience. I'm not saying people are playing wrong (nothing's wrong really), but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that some people simply play badly (i.e. with little tactical finesse) or without thinking much - and that's not reserved for the practice of setting an FMS.

Please don't take this personally - we all do stupid/tactically inferior choices most of the time. Myself included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game has always been too dependant on a few players willing to do tedious crap

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2017 at 5:54 PM, KMS said:

Would you prefer to drive everyone to battle? we used to and it was still fun.

No, I wouldn't at all. But I don't see why spawning from a couple of boxes is less realist than doing it from an soil igloo. Both things simplifly the reality.

Anyway, the more options we had for creating content and fight scenarios, the better the game would be. Instead of that, we are eliminating and removing options and making the game more predictable and boring.

Limited-supply INF FRUS would add a lot of good things to battles. Adding value to buildings (in the case we could set them inside them), preventing CAMPING FESTS (because you could spawn in a second or third floor in some houses or change the FRU locations easier and faster) and promoting teamwork in small arms teams acting from diferent vectors in a battle, making it rich and challenger for defenders.

I still don't understand why a bunch of freaking rifles (which is what I demand to spawn in inf FRUS) would be a so game breaker, specially with this mad long cap timers we have now.

ADD OPTIONS TO THE GAME, DON'T DELETE THEM.

 

Edited by erasmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2017 at 3:40 PM, bmbm said:

Well, what can I say - that's one sorry tale. Certainly not my experience. I'm not saying people are playing wrong (nothing's wrong really), but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that some people simply play badly (i.e. with little tactical finesse) or without thinking much - and that's not reserved for the practice of setting an FMS.

Please don't take this personally - we all do stupid/tactically inferior choices most of the time. Myself included.

mmmhmm, the tiny part of the population that even bothers with FMS's, and ones that actually get them built but camped on a regular basis, are all idiots

there's nothing wrong with that... population can barley sustain 1 AO and difficult FMS's are the way to go

: /

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/12/2017 at 7:46 AM, erasmo said:

No, I wouldn't at all. But I don't see why spawning from a couple of boxes is less realist than doing it from an soil igloo. Both things simplifly the reality.

Anyway, the more options we had for creating content and fight scenarios, the better the game would be. Instead of that, we are eliminating and removing options and making the game more predictable and boring.

Limited-supply INF FRUS would add a lot of good things to battles. Adding value to buildings (in the case we could set them inside them), preventing CAMPING FESTS (because you could spawn in a second or third floor in some houses or change the FRU locations easier and faster) and promoting teamwork in small arms teams acting from diferent vectors in a battle, making it rich and challenger for defenders.

I still don't understand why a bunch of freaking rifles (which is what I demand to spawn in inf FRUS) would be a so game breaker, specially with this mad long cap timers we have now.

ADD OPTIONS TO THE GAME, DON'T DELETE THEM.

 

I don't come often in the peasant section of the forums so I missed this.

But yeah, agreed 100%.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lob12 said:

I don't come often in the peasant section of the forums so I missed this.

But yeah, agreed 100%.

 

You are hereby facepalmed & banished back to OT. And take your 'bird' with you, mon chum. 

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 7:46 AM, erasmo said:

No, I wouldn't at all. But I don't see why spawning from a couple of boxes is less realist than doing it from an soil igloo. Both things simplifly the reality.

Anyway, the more options we had for creating content and fight scenarios, the better the game would be. Instead of that, we are eliminating and removing options and making the game more predictable and boring.

Limited-supply INF FRUS would add a lot of good things to battles. Adding value to buildings (in the case we could set them inside them), preventing CAMPING FESTS (because you could spawn in a second or third floor in some houses or change the FRU locations easier and faster) and promoting teamwork in small arms teams acting from diferent vectors in a battle, making it rich and challenger for defenders.

I still don't understand why a bunch of freaking rifles (which is what I demand to spawn in inf FRUS) would be a so game breaker, specially with this mad long cap timers we have now.

ADD OPTIONS TO THE GAME, DON'T DELETE THEM.

 

You're suguesting an awful lot, here.

Allow new Mobile Spawn type to be set by infantry.

Allow said new Mobile Spawn type to be placed in buildings.

Restrict new Mobile Spawn type to only spawn rifles.

 

Unless you mean to repurpose the Urban MS back to the old FRU, then it's not a "new" type.

Do you have any suggestions on how to prevent said mobile spawn from appearing behind enemy lines without warning, such as past destroyed bridges, past armored recon, etc.? Or is that not an issue for you?

 

As for adding/keeping/removing content, each new thing requires additional support, and it's one more point of failure to check for when things change. You also need to be able to educate players for each of those options. Finally, each option ideally needs to be intuitive.

So you add things that are fun and intuitive, you keep things that aren't broken, and you remove things that are broken, aren't intuitive, aren't productive, etc.

 

Previous inf frus were bad design, at least in my opinion. Some concessions must be made on realism vs. ease-of-use, but the whole ping-ponging was absolutely ridiculous, and you'd cause an area you almost certainly had cleared out to suddenly be swarming under enemy control. You'd find and kick down that FRU, and it'd happen again after a while. For the people using the fru, there was no real way to cover it, and you'd have to deal with ninja grenadiers who would remove your point of attack with ease. They were just as campable as the new ones, it was just more likely that someone would blow it up instead. When it was blown up, you'd have to play musical squad leader with whoever was prone in the bushes or was sufficiently good at pulling a Houdini and still alive and wait for a timer to put it back up. Not fun, not intuitive, not realistic, not easy to use. Very silly. You talk about the new FMS being "boring and predictable", but the old fru, while not necessarily boring, was annoying-as-hell for everyone involved and predictable.

Bringing it back is re-inviting all of those things, and I'm not sure you're considering those issues. If you don't think those are issues, that's fair. If you do think those are issues and you've thought about how to deal with them, that's good, but as-is your suggestion appears to be "but do it this way and then that's new and new is always better and removing is always worse".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you need to coordinate with HC and they need to coordinate with the players. By doing this, you set FMS up before the AO is set.

If you run only 4 trucks in then you will only see light EWS going off in the town. it requires planning and coordination. This is a simulation is it not?

Prepping and coordination. That's the key. Maybe even scouting in advance.

CRS how about a scout plane that was suggested before. This would add another aspect to the game. Me, personally would love to fly one.

CRS how about the PPO FBs that were suggested also by me. 3 levels of FBs, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, imded said:

CRS how about a scout plane that was suggested before. This would add another aspect to the game. Me, personally would love to fly one.

Not sure how helpful scout planes would realistically be. To be useful, they'd have to run low and slow (renderer limitations for the game). Scout planes are also tyically lightly armed and lightly armored. While a cool idea, I don't see how they would ever be useful when LMGs could take them out with ease, and actual AAA, never mind the SPAA coming out or the HE audit, would breathe in their general direction and blow them out of the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Bridges and Rivers lose their true war significance with an infantry placed supply model in action. For this reason alone I consider the truck placed FMS or MS a superior one. In my humble opinion of course.

S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chaoswzkd said:

You're suguesting an awful lot, here.

Allow new Mobile Spawn type to be set by infantry.

Allow said new Mobile Spawn type to be placed in buildings.

Restrict new Mobile Spawn type to only spawn rifles.

 

Unless you mean to repurpose the Urban MS back to the old FRU, then it's not a "new" type.

Do you have any suggestions on how to prevent said mobile spawn from appearing behind enemy lines without warning, such as past destroyed bridges, past armored recon, etc.? Or is that not an issue for you?

 

As for adding/keeping/removing content, each new thing requires additional support, and it's one more point of failure to check for when things change. You also need to be able to educate players for each of those options. Finally, each option ideally needs to be intuitive.

So you add things that are fun and intuitive, you keep things that aren't broken, and you remove things that are broken, aren't intuitive, aren't productive, etc.

 

Previous inf frus were bad design, at least in my opinion. Some concessions must be made on realism vs. ease-of-use, but the whole ping-ponging was absolutely ridiculous, and you'd cause an area you almost certainly had cleared out to suddenly be swarming under enemy control. You'd find and kick down that FRU, and it'd happen again after a while. For the people using the fru, there was no real way to cover it, and you'd have to deal with ninja grenadiers who would remove your point of attack with ease. They were just as campable as the new ones, it was just more likely that someone would blow it up instead. When it was blown up, you'd have to play musical squad leader with whoever was prone in the bushes or was sufficiently good at pulling a Houdini and still alive and wait for a timer to put it back up. Not fun, not intuitive, not realistic, not easy to use. Very silly. You talk about the new FMS being "boring and predictable", but the old fru, while not necessarily boring, was annoying-as-hell for everyone involved and predictable.

Bringing it back is re-inviting all of those things, and I'm not sure you're considering those issues. If you don't think those are issues, that's fair. If you do think those are issues and you've thought about how to deal with them, that's good, but as-is your suggestion appears to be "but do it this way and then that's new and new is always better and removing is always worse".

I don't know why you say I demand a "new" MS. I suggest to bring back the former FRU as it was, but with 2 basic modifications:

- Allow them to be set inside buldings

- Restrict the supply you can spawn in to regular rifles.

With those changes you gain a different type of MS, less campable than the FMS is atm, you give the buildings we have ingame (completely and massively underused, btw) and you fix one of the most commented inconvenients the FRUS had: that you could use RPATs and the full list of auto weapons if you set the FRU from AB. That was seen like a sort of game breaker but if you restrict the pool to rifles, adding now the super long cap timers we have, the impact of the inf-FRU would be way inferior than it was in the past. And that's quite clear to me.

And to confirm, yes: I don't see the issues you see. We have different visions, As simple as that. Bridges, rivers etc. are minor things to me. THE MOST of the towns on the map do NOT have them. Anyway, with exceptions, I don't see a clear boost on their importance since the FMS is in, and I am actively playing since then. So, gonna we justify the FMS as the best option just for that? Insuficient to my understanding. Same for the point: I check an area with armored car and saw anything so it is gamey if it was no actually clear. WEll, check better next time or stay longer. Similar to that so hated scenario for some people: I cleared and area of FRU and some eis but then they rebuild the FRU there again or somewhere in a different place: ok, keep watching, patroling, checking flags. Is it so hard? So terrible? I don't see it that way. Again: especially if we hipotheticaly talk about only regular rifles spawning in.

And no, I didn't say to add is always good and to remove is always bad. That's not my thinking at all. I was refering to this topic especifically, assuming the former INF-FRU was not such a bad idea. It only needed changes and it could complement the FMS perfectly.

But fair enough if you, or others, think the opposite. I do know I am on the minority tranche here.

Edited by erasmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

Once again, lowering the sound of the current trucks would work wonders.

This.  The sound was cranked a long time ago with the theory that it would help TZ3 low pop defenders.  When the numbers were there the low pop defenders got rolled anyway.  When the numbers disappeared the loud trucks just killed action for both sides in TZ3 because they are easy to defend against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want to go back to the day when a single infantry man can run out, sneak into a position within a hundred meters of your ATGs and AA guns, erect a FRU and have a few guys spawn and lay waist to the effort you put into setting us a ZOC.  I want them to actually have to work to get there.  IF you want the FMS to actually be fortified, you need a way to actually prevent the supply from spawning in the open and being killed as they appear.  I have suggested that the FMS should be able to be built out so the engineers can customize and entrench the FMS with selectable and auto connecting pieces like corners, high walls and low walls etc.  There for the FMS can become more fortified.  I think THAT approach leads us closer to getting rid of the FB and battles then become broader in scope and into the landscape.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** FMS should be able to be built out so the engineers can customize and entrench the FMS with selectable and auto connecting pieces like corners, high walls and low walls etc

With one huge caveat, ea must not be able to destroy them so easily.

Right now, one bomb clears every PPO in a 50 to 100m radius - instantly.  And as you know, FMS are easily strafed by aircraft MGs and destroyed.

Personally, I'd make it so all PPOs can't be taken out by any ea, ever;  ok, maybe 50 very close or direct bomb hits.  ea can strafe, suppress, camp, spot, mark etc. - but can't destroy anything.

PPOs need to be taken out by engrs.

 

The rifle only MS, placed by infantry - is interesting; ya I don't like infantry placed MS either - but - it prolly would create dynamic fights.  And yes, the rifle MS should be able to be placed anywhere!  That includes buildings, upper floors, roofs, AFs etc.  If that is easy to code, it might make for an interesting test.

 

And speaking of truck sounds, the 251c sounds the same 500m as 1500m away, it is WAY loud, never realized it was that loud - needs to be toned down some  - guessing Sd Kfz 7 the same way, but not sure.  Don't have to shorten the range per se, but need to lower the volume at range.

 

Share this post


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

*** FMS should be able to be built out so the engineers can customize and entrench the FMS with selectable and auto connecting pieces like corners, high walls and low walls etc

With one huge caveat, ea must not be able to destroy them so easily.

Right now, one bomb clears every PPO in a 50 to 100m radius - instantly.  And as you know, FMS are easily strafed by aircraft MGs and destroyed.

Personally, I'd make it so all PPOs can't be taken out by any ea, ever;  ok, maybe 50 very close or direct bomb hits.  ea can strafe, suppress, camp, spot, mark etc. - but can't destroy anything.

PPOs need to be taken out by engrs.

 

The rifle only MS, placed by infantry - is interesting; ya I don't like infantry placed MS either - but - it prolly would create dynamic fights.  And yes, the rifle MS should be able to be placed anywhere!  That includes buildings, upper floors, roofs, AFs etc.  If that is easy to code, it might make for an interesting test.

 

And speaking of truck sounds, the 251c sounds the same 500m as 1500m away, it is WAY loud, never realized it was that loud - needs to be toned down some  - guessing Sd Kfz 7 the same way, but not sure.  Don't have to shorten the range per se, but need to lower the volume at range.

 

I would agree, I have ferreted out the actual FMS by dropping 1 or 2 bombs on what probably took 2 engineers and hour or more to fortify leaving the actual FMS alone.  It does not take much from a H2C at that point to use your cannons to drop the actual FMS.  I think no cannon fire should be able to take them out.  I also think that the more you fortify your FMS, the more bombs it takes to drop it - Gives you more of an incentive to fortify up and mb to the point that your best bet is to use engineers to take it down...   I don't want to give the fly boys even less of a part of the game plan to where they actually will help the ground war game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.