• 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.
Quincannon

Remove FB Status Monitoring

48 posts in this topic

This is a an every day occurrence on the field:

The AO is stale, the HC needs to set up a new AO, but the enemy owns almost every other FB. Every time an attempt is made to take an enemy FB they shut it down. The fact that the damage is shown on an FB allows the controlling side to easily monitor and know when the enemy is planning on making an attack.

The side that owns all the FBs holds the line because the other side can't spawn any attacks.

The side that owns the FBs can easily set up attacks.

The losing side population logs because there's nothing much that they can do except wait for the next attack to pop up.

The Problem: It's become way too easy to prevent anyone from blowing an FB anymore. The solution that prevented AOs from being killed by easily blowing an FB, has also made it ridiculously hard to blow FBs when they are NOT part of an active AO. I understand the issues with FBs going down during an AO, and making them harder to destroy. BUT...I think that the current setup really hinders movement in the game and easily broadcasts a side's plans to try to set up an AO by gaining an FB to do so. So how to open up this bottleneck?

The Solution:  Disable the FB monitoring status report. Disable self repairing FBs.This would mean that no one on either side would be able to tell exactly how damaged an FB is remotely. I do not mean the ability to see who owns the FB, rather the .ow command to check the damaged status.

Consider that nothing will change here, save that if someone wants to check the status of an FB they own, they will have to send someone there to see what's going on. FB defenders wouldn't be able to say. "Oh it's still at 75%, I'll wait to go defend it until it's at 90%"  If they want to defend an FB, then they have to  defend it.

FB Attackers wouldn't be able to know exactly how successful their efforts were until the FB went down. But if one attempt failed, it wouldn't be a complete failure, because the damage that they did would remain for a future attempt. The situation where a FB blowing team has worked for an hour to set up a FB bust, only to have one person monitor the status and pop in with an lmg to kill them all would not happen almost every time.

This change would mean that FBs could be blown in non AO situations much more easily, allowing for a side to begin setting up an attack without being stopped at the FB time after time. However, this does not mean that it would be easier to set up attacks. Defenders would likely be looking for FBs to switch, and when that happened, they would be ready to spawn defensive units. Attackers who go after an FB would want to have people ready to spawn at the FB and roll.  It would also allow for a side to blow multiple FBs without every FB bust telegraphing an attack, which tends to be what happens now.

For those folks who think that this will hurt AOs again, I honestly doubt it would. The FBs still take a long time to blow now, and an attacking force SHOULD make an effort to protect their FB. I do not think that this would shut down attacks very often.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumb question maybe, but would it be hard to simply make FB damage status not available on wiretap? 
You could still check in game, but that at least entails a lot of clicking and dragging the map around and no easy way to monitor them all second by second

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe as ingame pops go up, this should be strongly considered.  Until then I dunno---low ingame pops might make it near-impossible to effectively guard FBs, thus the choice is to guard FBs or defend a town, or conduct an attack for a little while until the FB is blown...

Share this post


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

I believe as ingame pops go up, this should be strongly considered.  Until then I dunno---low ingame pops might make it near-impossible to effectively guard FBs, thus the choice is to guard FBs or defend a town, or conduct an attack for a little while until the FB is blown...

I agree that it might be harder to defend an FB, but it stinks that the moment someone goes to attack an FB, one person watching the map can see that the damage has been done, then watch the damage levels before sending defenders.

I KNOW low pop issues, and understand the idea that a lowpop defender could potentially stop an attack by defending the FB if they see it being blown. I feel, however, that the pluses here would definitely outweigh the minuses.

An underpopped side could have a couple of guys blow some FBs to set up potential  attacks with this change, where right now an overpopped side can just see them trying, spawn in and stop pretty much every attempt. An underpopped side usually can't afford to send a full squad or team to blow an FB.

And consider that during an attack, it only takes one person at an FB to check to see if it's been damaged. Considering the amount of damage FBs take now, defending them isn't that hard if you can catch the FB busters in the act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Dumb question maybe, but would it be hard to simply make FB damage status not available on wiretap? 
You could still check in game, but that at least entails a lot of clicking and dragging the map around and no easy way to monitor them all second by second

I have never used Wiretap, really. I tried and it's a pain. When I am on map I try to check FB status regularly, and always do it in-game. I assume that I'm not the only one. I do not believe that simply disabling the report in Wiretap would have that much of an impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No i dont scan the map checking them but then i am not HC either.
I think a person does need to know something about it even if it only shows if the individual spawns are up or down
Need to know when to stop throwing satchels on a thing that is already dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid question, never been HC so I have no clue what tools they get. 

Is there an overall command that shows all the FBs and their health status in one swoop?

I highly doubt one player clicks onto each FB and does a .ow command .

I play the game to have fun and prevent others from taking the town I'm at . So I never really got deep into all the dot commands and whatnot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have suggested before, making the FB a PPO. No hard location on the map. So you would not be able to check damage status.

You would have 3x levels of a FB.

  1. Light (minimal supplies) Brigade specific it was built from. 20-30% of infantry only and 4 trucks.
  2. Med. (mid level supplies) Brigade specific it was built from. 50-65% of infantry and 10 trucks. Some light tanks, aaa, atg too.
  3. Full  (full level of supplies per that brig it was built from) Ammo dump, fuel dump, supply tents, tent barracks, vehicle repair/spawn tents. And maybe one (1) machine gun pit.

You would have to build a FB per brigade. It would be allowed in a zone of construction. One engineer would take a long time to build a FB to full level.

This would open up some air searching and you would need a new plane. Scout Planes. Limited in supplies per air brigade (3x), unarmed. No halo, just name and would NOT kick off radar.

FBs, they would be repairable. If you can destroy it, you should be able to repair it.  All repairs must be done to the outside and cost like repairing a bridge.

Which brings up a new character. A building/repair engineer.

And I could go on with this. Hope you get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dre21 said:

Is there an overall command that shows all the FBs and their health status in one swoop?

I do not think so.

 

1 hour ago, imded said:

You would have 3x levels of a FB

I'd go with 2 since brigades in the near future won't be what they are now
 

1) HC sanctioned, functions much as normal FB does now, has full garrison supply
HC approves location, Place flag marker (not a bde type map flag, just a marker so friendlies can see what they are doing) so players can see where to put the pieces. Players then show up with trucks and put the required pieces (veh and infantry spawns, supply tent) and perhaps some additional defensive pieces.
Must be within a given distance of the flag (marker)

2) Squad level
Smaller FB single set by squad XO or CO using a truck, consists of a combined VEH/Inf spawn tent
has throttled spawning but otherwise full unit type access from whatever the garrison has
can be placed a bit more freely than the HC sanctioned type (less distance buffer).

Only 1 HC sanctioned FB can exist from a given garrison
Any number of squad FB's can exist out of a given garrison but only 1 per squad

If squad has purchased a squad patch, display logo on FB flag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happened to us last day. We had 6 charges left on the veh spawn and magically a whole army poped-up. There was no AO either, it was a preventive action to secure the frontline.

that being said, not a major problem though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know there is NO single button for anyone to check ALL FBs, That said, it is not uncommon for either an HC or a player to decide to keep an eye on all of their side's FBs. If I were in a squad that had decided to focus on making sure we owned as many FBs as possible, I would make sure someone was checking them as often as possible. This would allow us to see which FB was being attacked without even spawning in. If the monitoring was disabled, people would have to physically check to see the status. This would allow for FB busters to have a chance to complete their mission without the enemy seeing it in their virtual crystal ball.

 

16 hours ago, merlin51 said:

I do not think so.

 

I'd go with 2 since brigades in the near future won't be what they are now
 

1) HC sanctioned, functions much as normal FB does now, has full garrison supply
HC approves location, Place flag marker (not a bde type map flag, just a marker so friendlies can see what they are doing) so players can see where to put the pieces. Players then show up with trucks and put the required pieces (veh and infantry spawns, supply tent) and perhaps some additional defensive pieces.
Must be within a given distance of the flag (marker)

2) Squad level
Smaller FB single set by squad XO or CO using a truck, consists of a combined VEH/Inf spawn tent
has throttled spawning but otherwise full unit type access from whatever the garrison has
can be placed a bit more freely than the HC sanctioned type (less distance buffer).

Only 1 HC sanctioned FB can exist from a given garrison
Any number of squad FB's can exist out of a given garrison but only 1 per squad

If squad has purchased a squad patch, display logo on FB flag

As far as making FBs PPOs. I have made suggestions along those lines myself.But i think the idea of having different levels of FBs is making the system way too complicated. I also think that the idea of having a FB that requires an entire team to build it is unfeasible. Maybe... MAYBE... large squads could field the amount of folks you are talking about, but if a side were underpop, they would be denied  even a chance of ever having an FB.

I doubt the HC level FB could be done the way you propose. Maybe an HC could look at the map and suggest where an FB should be placed, but I doubt that HC could place a side wide marker telling someone else where to build an FB. Heck, we can't get missions from different branches or towns to see the same marks now.

As far as the Squad FB suggested, it sounds pretty much like an enhanced FMS.

Also remember, unless something changes, all PPOs have a limited time span before they go poof, and if the creator for some reason, fails to name a replacement or have someone else take it over when tthey log off, then spawn PPOs simply vanish. How many people would freak out if  the main FB just vanished during a battle because an HC had to log and there wasn't another HC to take over an "HC FB" or they simply lost connection and decided not to log back in?

I'm not sure how the logistics of  spawn PPOs spawning from spawn PPOs would work, either. Would players be able to spawn trucks from a PPO and then place an FMS PPO?


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some things to consider here:

Town EWS is an abstraction of civilians and garrison soldiers reporting that enemy activity may be nearby (hearing things, maybe spotted something, etc.)

AWS is the same thing, but for aircraft presence.

 

One would think, following the above two abstractions, that Forward Bases, which would have a garrison of soldiers, staff, etc., would also report when it's under attack.

Yet, it doesn't, and it's a PITA to check.

 

The OP is suggesting that, rather than increasing the amount of informatin provided to the players, and information that would be available given current abstractions around the game being a war simulation game, that we instead completely remove the information.

I just can't get behind that. I agree with some of your goals, but I don't support the suggestions.

I'll try a counter proposal:

- Add bits to both Vehicle Tents and Infantry Tents outside its current model in a largeish area. These will be able to take damage.

- Change repair timer from linear to delayed-linear. Damage stays on FBs and will only repair if they have received no damage for an hour. To compensate, they will repair far faster when they do start repairing.

- Buff damage to / nerf survivability of FBs when they are not connected to AOs. This represents that they are staffed with forward elements rather than main forces (that would be there for an AO).

- Keeping with the EWS/AWS abstraction, and the actual goal of providing more locations to fight outside of towns, notifications will be sent on the HC channel when an FB is damaged.

 

The goal here is to make it so that an attacking force has many more options available to them. A defending force also has a much harder time, because it will be very unlikely that they'll be able to stand in one position for perfect overwatch. Defenders will have to actively defend, post guards, or patrol to check all of the bits that could have satchels placed on/near them.

In exchange, FB defenders will be able to have an opportunity to spawn up and defend themselves.

 

A well-coordinated attack should be able to very quickly drop a non-AO FB, and any FB can be slowly whittled away with continuous skirmishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think fb's with no associated ao should just require 4 charges on each, I find it so boring blowing cold fb's now, having an FB ews system could make for some awesome battles, something to assist the underpop side would be needed as well though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neutral AO's could be an idea.

Once the AO is placed, the FB becomes active instead of having players running around blowing undefended FB's.

 

Share this post


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

There are some things to consider here:

Town EWS is an abstraction of civilians and garrison soldiers reporting that enemy activity may be nearby (hearing things, maybe spotted something, etc.)

AWS is the same thing, but for aircraft presence.

 

One would think, following the above two abstractions, that Forward Bases, which would have a garrison of soldiers, staff, etc., would also report when it's under attack.

Yet, it doesn't, and it's a PITA to check.

 

The OP is suggesting that, rather than increasing the amount of informatin provided to the players, and information that would be available given current abstractions around the game being a war simulation game, that we instead completely remove the information.

I just can't get behind that. I agree with some of your goals, but I don't support the suggestions.

I'll try a counter proposal:

- Add bits to both Vehicle Tents and Infantry Tents outside its current model in a largeish area. These will be able to take damage.

- Change repair timer from linear to delayed-linear. Damage stays on FBs and will only repair if they have received no damage for an hour. To compensate, they will repair far faster when they do start repairing.

- Buff damage to / nerf survivability of FBs when they are not connected to AOs. This represents that they are staffed with forward elements rather than main forces (that would be there for an AO).

- Keeping with the EWS/AWS abstraction, and the actual goal of providing more locations to fight outside of towns, notifications will be sent on the HC channel when an FB is damaged.

 

The goal here is to make it so that an attacking force has many more options available to them. A defending force also has a much harder time, because it will be very unlikely that they'll be able to stand in one position for perfect overwatch. Defenders will have to actively defend, post guards, or patrol to check all of the bits that could have satchels placed on/near them.

In exchange, FB defenders will be able to have an opportunity to spawn up and defend themselves.

 

A well-coordinated attack should be able to very quickly drop a non-AO FB, and any FB can be slowly whittled away with continuous skirmishes.

I hate to say this, but your post sounds as if you think we should make it even HARDER to blow FBs than it is now. Dear Lord, I pray that never happens.

One of my points, is that without a combined force, say, a driver, multiple engineers and at LEAST one or two smgs/lmgs, not counting tanks, it is becoming almost impossible to blow an FB, whether it is art of an AO or not. Because of this, an underpopped side who can barely muster enough to consider attacking something, is highly unlikely to be able to try to blow an FB. 2-3 guys? Forgaddaboudit!
 

A large part of what I would like to accomplish would be that the FBs DON"T require a full scale battle to blow them every time. We don't have the population! I know that a bunch of folks, and from your post maybe you are one of them, WANT FB battles, and during an AO, I could agree. But every single time? There simply will never be enough engineers to even consider it. In addition,  I believe a group of 2-3 determined players should be able to have a chance to blow FBs if they are not "hot". 

Your last sentence talks about how a well coordinated attack should be able to drop a non AO FB. I'm trying to point out how often that it is impossible fo a side to have the people for such an attack. If we are going to decide that even a non AO FB is impossible to take down without at least 5-7 men per bust... well we might as well acknowledge that an really underpopped side is never going to be able to attempt an attack ever again. Unfortunately when a side reaches the point where they can only defend with no hope of attacking for several hours, players log out  pretty darn quickly, helping make the underpop issue even more extreme.

Your suggestion that any attack on an FB immediately generate a message to HC? It would make any attempt on a non AO FB a complete waste of time unless people just wanted a big FB battle for Sh**s and grins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Pittpete said:

Neutral AO's could be an idea.

Once the AO is placed, the FB becomes active instead of having players running around blowing undefended FB's.

 

Not ideal, but a world better than what we have now. Right now, FBs create a stranglehold on AO possibilities, requiring large coordinated groups to blow them in most cases. If they only went active when the AO is placed, they wouldn't prevent setting up an attack.

the problem with this idea is supply, because the current system requires ownership of an active FB to set FMSs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 6:28 PM, Quincannon said:

This is a an every day occurrence on the field:

The AO is stale, the HC needs to set up a new AO, but the enemy owns almost every other FB. Every time an attempt is made to take an enemy FB they shut it down. The fact that the damage is shown on an FB allows the controlling side to easily monitor and know when the enemy is planning on making an attack.

The side that owns all the FBs holds the line because the other side can't spawn any attacks.

The side that owns the FBs can easily set up attacks.

The losing side population logs because there's nothing much that they can do except wait for the next attack to pop up.

The Problem: It's become way too easy to prevent anyone from blowing an FB anymore. The solution that prevented AOs from being killed by easily blowing an FB, has also made it ridiculously hard to blow FBs when they are NOT part of an active AO. I understand the issues with FBs going down during an AO, and making them harder to destroy. BUT...I think that the current setup really hinders movement in the game and easily broadcasts a side's plans to try to set up an AO by gaining an FB to do so. So how to open up this bottleneck?

The Solution:  Disable the FB monitoring status report. Disable self repairing FBs.This would mean that no one on either side would be able to tell exactly how damaged an FB is remotely. I do not mean the ability to see who owns the FB, rather the .ow command to check the damaged status.

Consider that nothing will change here, save that if someone wants to check the status of an FB they own, they will have to send someone there to see what's going on. FB defenders wouldn't be able to say. "Oh it's still at 75%, I'll wait to go defend it until it's at 90%"  If they want to defend an FB, then they have to  defend it.

FB Attackers wouldn't be able to know exactly how successful their efforts were until the FB went down. But if one attempt failed, it wouldn't be a complete failure, because the damage that they did would remain for a future attempt. The situation where a FB blowing team has worked for an hour to set up a FB bust, only to have one person monitor the status and pop in with an lmg to kill them all would not happen almost every time.

This change would mean that FBs could be blown in non AO situations much more easily, allowing for a side to begin setting up an attack without being stopped at the FB time after time. However, this does not mean that it would be easier to set up attacks. Defenders would likely be looking for FBs to switch, and when that happened, they would be ready to spawn defensive units. Attackers who go after an FB would want to have people ready to spawn at the FB and roll.  It would also allow for a side to blow multiple FBs without every FB bust telegraphing an attack, which tends to be what happens now.

For those folks who think that this will hurt AOs again, I honestly doubt it would. The FBs still take a long time to blow now, and an attacking force SHOULD make an effort to protect their FB. I do not think that this would shut down attacks very often.

 

 

guess you should stop being lazy and watch for damage on fbs like I do

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, sgthenning said:

guess you should stop being lazy and watch for damage on fbs like I do

I'm sorry, did I say something that provoked such an insult from you Sgthenning? Have I ever insulted YOU, Sir? This is uncalled for. I thought you better than that.

There is nothing in my post that says that I do NOT watch FBs for damage. My point is that the current system allows people to check the FBs remotely, instead of needing to actually spawn in and check them. I want to see the ability to guard FBs remotely disabled.

The current system allows an overpopped side to own all the FBs and potentially force the underpopped side to be unable to attack at all. This also effectively creates a situation where any attempt by the underpopped side to go after an FB telegraphs their attacks in advance. Even if they are able to effectively blow an FB, the overpopped side already knows they are coming and is prepared and able to repel them even before they can begin to set up an AO, making the entire attempt a foregone conclusion and a waste of time and resources. Another result tends to be players logging because they can't attack.

In addition, if the underpopped side IS shut down, they are still required to maintain an AO somewhere or the auto system sets one, even if they cannot use it. This causes additional frustration for HC officers and players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2018 at 4:28 AM, Quincannon said:

I hate to say this, but your post sounds as if you think we should make it even HARDER to blow FBs than it is now. Dear Lord, I pray that never happens.

One of my points, is that without a combined force, say, a driver, multiple engineers and at LEAST one or two smgs/lmgs, not counting tanks, it is becoming almost impossible to blow an FB, whether it is art of an AO or not. Because of this, an underpopped side who can barely muster enough to consider attacking something, is highly unlikely to be able to try to blow an FB. 2-3 guys? Forgaddaboudit!
 

A large part of what I would like to accomplish would be that the FBs DON"T require a full scale battle to blow them every time. We don't have the population! I know that a bunch of folks, and from your post maybe you are one of them, WANT FB battles, and during an AO, I could agree. But every single time? There simply will never be enough engineers to even consider it. In addition,  I believe a group of 2-3 determined players should be able to have a chance to blow FBs if they are not "hot". 

Your last sentence talks about how a well coordinated attack should be able to drop a non AO FB. I'm trying to point out how often that it is impossible fo a side to have the people for such an attack. If we are going to decide that even a non AO FB is impossible to take down without at least 5-7 men per bust... well we might as well acknowledge that an really underpopped side is never going to be able to attempt an attack ever again. Unfortunately when a side reaches the point where they can only defend with no hope of attacking for several hours, players log out  pretty darn quickly, helping make the underpop issue even more extreme.

Your suggestion that any attack on an FB immediately generate a message to HC? It would make any attempt on a non AO FB a complete waste of time unless people just wanted a big FB battle for Sh**s and grins.

You may have misread some of my points if you think that's the take-away.

I suggested making it easier for an attacker to place charges, easier for an attacker to keep up a consistent attack, and easier for an attacker to blow non-AO FBs.

I also suggested that, in order to remove the inconsistency we have with EWS/AWS and FBs, a message should be displayed when they are damaged.

This would allow one person with a nearby FMS to blow any non-AO FB given enough time, because they would reset the repair timer every time they hit it, and most defenders aren't going to sit at a place with no action for so long. It would allow a team of 3-4 engineers to blow a non-AO FB maybe instantly. And it would still keep AO FBs things that need to be fought over, but a long, protracted AO would pose a significant threat because persistent engineers could eventually whittle it down by continually resetting the repair timer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2018 at 4:55 AM, sgthenning said:

guess you should stop being lazy and watch for damage on fbs like I do

Pretty much. 

If you really want the FB, take it. Bring more than 1 engineer and a truck.  

 

There's plenty of other things in this game that could use the attention of the devs besides this lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, moe5000 said:

Pretty much. 

If you really want the FB, take it. Bring more than 1 engineer and a truck.  

 

There's plenty of other things in this game that could use the attention of the devs besides this lol

AGAIN... To make a statement that states I am lazy is an insult. This was never about me not watching FBs, but about the   idea that the ability to do so remotely should be disabled so that no one can do it. But let me put this into a different POV. I hate the fact that no matter what people try to do in this game, a side could assign ONE person to watch bridges, FBs and towns, and that one person can effectively  be responsible for shutting down the opposing side...Without even bothering to spawn in at all. No real effort... just click through them and type the .ow command. Suddenly any infantry bridge repairs or attacks are detected and easily stopped by an OP side. Any attempts on an FB bust are again stopped because one guy calls his squaddies and a bunch drop in and end the FB bust, and that's it.

I am arguing for something that makes sense. If you want to defend your FB, spawn in physically and check it. If you want to defend a bridge... spawn in and check it. The remote monitoring makes any attempts by an underpopped side a complete waste of time. I know that as things stand, there is no way I'm going to spend an hour setting up an FB bust just so one guy sitting on a map  and having a cup of coffee can  just click a button, see everything  we're trying to do and kill it by calling his buddies.

There is no fog of war in any way in this game. That's not putting it down. I love the game. I just know that with the  remote monitoring, that unless sides are even, attempting FB and bridge attacks(Not counting air) is asking to get crushed by defenders.

Someone tell me... if one side owns almost all of the FBs, AND are overpopped, AND can have one person overwatch  all of the FBs by remote... then why should the underpopped side even try to do anything but defend? Why should they not just let the system set whatever AO it will, as they will not have a dozen people to send on an FB bust (Which bust would be  waste if it is the only FB gained by the Underpopped side, because it would telegraph the only possible attack)

I used to bust FBs all the time. I loved it. It was one of my favorite parts of the game, as I am a support player because I do not have the ability to be an effective combat player (and never will). But for over a year now, I have almost never even considered attempting to bust an FB because I know that the chance of success will be.. oh yes... less than zero, and all that will happen is that time and engineers will be lost. I won't waste my time and I certainly will not ask people to pull away from undermanned defenses to spend an hour or more to achieve the same result and frustration. At this point, the only way i can ever conceive of trying to bust an FB is IF I could scrounge about 20 men to blow the bloody thing with riflemen. Anything else would be a waste of engineers. (But since 2012 I have never seen an FB bust that could muster more than 3-4 people.. so... again...)

Remote monitoring kills the FB game. TBH if I could do so without harming my side, I would never do a .ow again.  Lazy? Yeah. I'd be the one who spawns in to every FB to physically check it; so I guess I must be lazy.

S!S!S!S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

easy first step..remove fb status from wiretap.

Wiretap allows ANYONE with 2 monitors to see fb status AND play the game/discord etc. You don't even have to be in-game but be able to communicate with your sides HC/squadies.

Wiretap allows any side that has OP and THEREFORE TIME to check fbs while they wait to spawn.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wiretap doesn't show you when a FB got damage, it only shows when the FB has changed ownership, and it does with a few minutes of delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about FBs last night.

The FB mechanic is a terrible design point.  This game is about fighting.  FBs stop all fighting and ruin 100s of players action.

FBs are anti game action, they aren't just neutral - they destroy game action!

Let me say that again, FBs destroy game action, they should be treated like the plague.
 

Attacks should only stop for 4 reasons:

-Attacker runs out of supply

-Attacker can't break through - gets bored and moves on

-Defender runs out of supply

-Defender tactically beat and loses town (or they pull out)

 

I would p1 or p2 the removal of FBs from game immediately.

Instead, make a single FB, about halfway between the two towns, and make it capturable.

Simplest would be just to use the existing FB bldgs, add a CP or two and wala - capturable FB.

I would also make FBs hot and capturable at all times; they would never go away, one always exists between the 2 towns, just it may change owners.

The owner can spawn there, just like today.

 

This would provide many fights across the map (every FB would always be up and hot) and always provide a way to bring gear up from rear towns - FBs would never go away.

This should really be pondered and discussed.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

Wiretap doesn't show you when a FB got damage, it only shows when the FB has changed ownership, and it does with a few minutes of delay.

Shhh no facts please.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.