Sudden

The FB Dilemma Solved

41 posts in this topic

I know I know, two solutions in one day but that's how I roll.

We know that:

1. FB guard duty is one of the worst jobs in game.

2. Losing an FB is exactly like losing a town (perhaps you would have taken the town but lose the FB and you're done)

 

How do we make it better you ask.

Firstly , it's not something as simple as changing two timers so you may have to wait.

Here it is in a nutshell.

1. Octagonal wall around the FB (or around the VEH tent only if it's a spread out FB).

2. Why an octagonal wall? Because you want to keep as much freedom of movement as you can to keep it more like an unwalled FB.

3. Big deal you say. Yes indeed, because this wall has AI gates (8 of them). Anyone on your team only has to approach a gate and it will open but it will not open for the opposing team, they have to blow it up.

4. The gates can be repaired just like other AI but it's going to take a lot more engineer visits to do it.

5. Why does this work? It works because all you need now is one guard at the FB. That guard exists to raise the alarm. Those gates limit the approach of enemy sappers giving your defenders time to arrive.

6. The more gates the opposition take out, the easier it is for them to attack the FB. The battle for gate control brings a whole new component to FB battles. Everyone goes to bed happy. Nobody can biotch at the guards anymore, you are all responsible but can continue to attack until called.

 

BONUS: You could extend this idea to the AB walls, same two exits or add a couple more but all with AI gatekeepers. In addition, AI murder holes. Decide on the level of damage to breach each type and the effort required by engineers to repair the breach.

 

I would add more but you will have to ponder this yourselves, I have to solve world hunger by 10am tomorrow. Good night.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sudden

Share this post


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

I do not like this idea

Paradigm shifts are hard to accept for some of us. Mods in particular are narrow minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like camper heaven to me to be all honest, gates that need to open , unless you have a boat load of gates I don't see any good having that wall you speak of.  

How would that be any different then our ABs we have now.  And we all know if and once you are set up on an AB it's virtually impossible to break out and that would happen with the FB too. 

I like the open concept FB yeah its pain sometimes to defend but when it goes down its down. While in your scenario you can bind the FB players in that walled FB and nothing will come of it , you don't even need to take it out anymore , camp it till the one side just doesn't spawn anymore . 

I didn't know we had an FB issues/ dilemma in the 1st place.

Just my opinion.

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on the problem of boring guarding duty but what you propose is really complicated to implement.

Wouldn't it be far easier to just set up a timer and an automated alarm for FBs if you want to reduce the guarding duty?

1. FBs have to be AOed (just like bridges) and you can only put AOs on a given number - so you don't have to watch all of them. If they are, you have to wait 10 Minutes before you can start to blow it up.

2. If a FB takes damage, you get an alarm on the side chat. You'd have to coordinate the FB attack and show up with a lots of guys or people will take notice of your attack.

Alternative Put a timer on how much damage a FB can take so you can't blow it up by total suprise. 50% every 5 Minutes f.e.

 

Share this post


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

EWS on FBs?

If FBs were capture rather than ninja blow, perhaps 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Silky said:

If FBs were capture rather than ninja blow, perhaps 

Interesting ideas. Complexity of layers here though for gameplay. 

1. Capturable FBs is cool idea - but would need to sort out walls/buildings/tents or as is that would be captured - hexagon wall? a depot and cp in the middle of nowhere?

2. AOs/DOs & EWS on FBs: like bridges - also cool (though bridge AO/DOs not viz to other side at this time). EWS would relieve the current boredom of FB % watchers on each side (which % watching along with the upped satchel charge #s to blow, has made actually standing and guarding a FB almost not necessary. (unless 9 engineers show up at once with a truck). 

3. PPO FBS: probably best for game play but would need some consideration of #1 or #2 along with this, unless they were blowable just like now - only you'd have to find them - basically a bigger/better FMS - with similar range from/to origin & target parameters  - to build a FB could take X number of engineers/engineer tools - not dissimilar to blowing/fixing bridges or even, currently, to blow a FB (minimum 26 charges).

4. Semiotics of FB Grammar:  is it 'a' FB or 'an FB'? 

 

- Brought to you by the Society of FB Engineers, The Koran FB Facts Bureau and the BlowUP Film Festival

 

Image result for FB logosImage result for FB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sorella said:

Interesting ideas. Complexity of layers here though for gameplay. 

1. Capturable FBs is cool idea - but would need to sort out walls/buildings/tents or as is that would be captured - hexagon wall? a depot and cp in the middle of nowhere?

2. AOs/DOs on FBs: like bridges - also cool (though bridge AO/DOs not viz to other side at this time) 

3. PPO FBS: probably best for game play but would need some consideration of #1 or #2 along with this, unless they were blowable just like now - only you'd have to find them - basically a bigger/better FMS - with similar range from/to origin & target parameters  - to build a FB could take X number of engineers/engineer tools - not dissimilar to blowing/fixing bridges or even, currently, to blow a FB (minimum 26 charges).

4. Semiotics of FB Grammar:  is it 'a' FB or 'an FB'? 

 

- Brought to you by the Society of FB Engineers, The Koran FB Facts Bureau and the BlowUP Film Festival

 

 

1. Short term, just a hexagon. Longer term, replace tents with military-looking encampment or rural buildings 

003.jpg4e46427e-b069-46c4-af75-fcf0f7600

However, as I understand it capture FBs are not technically achievable 

Shame, because it would be a complete game changer 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your answers:

Camping problem is a non argument. FB's and AB's already get camped.

Capture vs. Destroy is acceptable.

Bug preventing gate opening. There are no bugs in wwiiol.

Timer/EWS on FB's will never work. Just ask the allied FB team. You must delay them long enough for help to arrive 

Share this post


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

1. Short term, just a hexagon. Longer term, replace tents with military-looking encampment or rural buildings 

003.jpg4e46427e-b069-46c4-af75-fcf0f7600

However, as I understand it capture FBs are not technically achievable 

Shame, because it would be a complete game changer 

That is a nice visual. Where from?

And surely 'FB Capture' could be achievable, even if simply using the existing depot/cp coding? Even if the FB were technically part of the town to be captured. Then it could be for example - capture the FB to trigger AO timer, making town cps capturable within 10 minutes of FB capture then the existing further 10mins for bunker/dox/af caps? 

Pym, CO, QoR
Quality Object Removal of FBs since 2015

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather go the route of FBs being esblished like we do the FMS.  That way they have to be located before they can be destroyed.  FB ping pong or using PPOs to interfere with new FBs popping up goes away.  I have also mulled over the position that defensive FBs should be a possibility.  I think with a new set of PPO options you can in fact design your fb and build them out with fortifications.  Some FBs have the Veh spawn opening facing the AO town and not only that, they are in range of long range guns from town or not far from being in range and get camped.  Some of the FBs are in horrible places that put your approach to town or getting away from the FB much more at risk.  I would not place my FB in a bowl.. or like in the case of Huy, that FB can be camped to hell and back but instead I would have it on top of the hill.  Some FBs are not even on the side of the river the origin town or town to be attacked is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pym said:

That is a nice visual. Where from?

And surely 'FB Capture' could be achievable, even if simply using the existing depot/cp coding? Even if the FB were technically part of the town to be captured. Then it could be for example - capture the FB to trigger AO timer, making town cps capturable within 10 minutes of FB capture then the existing further 10mins for bunker/dox/af caps? 

Pym, CO, QoR
Quality Object Removal of FBs since 2015

 

 

https://www.turbosquid.com/Search/3d-models a 3D artist site 

 

I understood it’s a question resourcing the work required to turn FB from blow to capture, given the number of FBs that would have to be amended 

It would be nice to trial Antwerp, Brussels, Liege and Lux FBs as a small scale exercise 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An alternative to capture but with the same effect: 

create objects (fixed and PPO) to which any ML from both side must « attach » its FMS.

Allowed units to spawn will depend on the type of object to re-create the fb/FMS differences. 

A « HQ truck » would deploy as manned MSP to only allow ML without FMS to spawn.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I have to wonder when the FBs started being easy to blow again. Unless something changed this week, all it takes to guard FBs is someone clicking on owned FBs and typing  .own in a few times. The moment they see any percentage of damage they send in their buddies. Wham bam! Unless the FB busters have 3-4 MG guys watching the infantry spawn like hawks, the FB bust is likely to get put out of its misery but fast. It's not like the old days when a 3 man team could actually blow an FB in a reasonable amount of time.

So to make it even harder, the idea is to wall in FBs with a wall that has a ton of AI gates? I agree with some that it sounds like putting the barrel around the fish.

Heck, I seriously think that the best way to resolve any issues with FBs is to make all FBs permanently up, but destroyable/  and rebuildable (Not capturable) This would create reasons for rebuilding missions; for interdiction missions; for  counter-AOs on attacking towns, and more. Think about it... the only way someone could prevent  a side form having their FB is to send troops there to blow it up and then to keep it from being rebuilt.

 Best of all, the mechanics for how missions work, for spawning from FBs, for supply., for blowing the FBs... all of these would remain the same. The only necessary changes would be to make the FBs permanent; to give them a  destroyed state; and to add coding to make them rebuildable once they were blown up.

The thread is here: http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/417227-persistent-rebuildable-fbs/

Share this post


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

First, I have to wonder when the FBs started being easy to blow again. Unless something changed this week, all it takes to guard FBs is someone clicking on owned FBs and typing  .own in a few times. The moment they see any percentage of damage they send in their buddies. Wham bam! Unless the FB busters have 3-4 MG guys watching the infantry spawn like hawks, the FB bust is likely to get put out of its misery but fast. It's not like the old days when a 3 man team could actually blow an FB in a reasonable amount of time.

So to make it even harder, the idea is to wall in FBs with a wall that has a ton of AI gates? I agree with some that it sounds like putting the barrel around the fish.

Heck, I seriously think that the best way to resolve any issues with FBs is to make all FBs permanently up, but destroyable/  and rebuildable (Not capturable) This would create reasons for rebuilding missions; for interdiction missions; for  counter-AOs on attacking towns, and more. Think about it... the only way someone could prevent  a side form having their FB is to send troops there to blow it up and then to keep it from being rebuilt.

 Best of all, the mechanics for how missions work, for spawning from FBs, for supply., for blowing the FBs... all of these would remain the same. The only necessary changes would be to make the FBs permanent; to give them a  destroyed state; and to add coding to make them rebuildable once they were blown up.

The thread is here: http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/417227-persistent-rebuildable-fbs/

So this means that rebuilders must leave from further away to get an operational fb back up? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zebbeee said:

So this means that rebuilders must leave from further away to get an operational fb back up? 

It's the same as we have now. If you lose an FB now, you have to set a  mission from our town to the enemy FB and set an FMS and blow it.

With the proposed idea, instead of driving to the enemy FB, you (the attacker) would bypass it, driving around that enemy FB and drive to your own destroyed FB, and rebuild it. Once rebuilt, the FB is completely usable as normal.  Yes this drive would be longer, as it would be all to the way of the forward base, but it really wouldn't take that much longer.

The problem would be that the enemy would try to stop you, unless you blow up their FB. BUT if you can get to your FB, they would have to have troops drive there to stop you from rebuilding it. You would build an FMS at your FB and you could spawn there until it was rebuilt. And if you blow their FB, they have to drive all the way to their FB to rebuild it instead of just sitting there  requiring  you to blow up their FB while they monitor and defend it before you can even think about spawning at your own FB. The ONLY way that they can stop you from rebuilding your FB is by sending people on the ground to stop you. Yes they could build an FMS near your destroyed FB... but you could blow it. This would make a great reason to take some armor or drop some paras to secure the area..


And for those who want countryside fighting,  interdiction, evasion... FB fights... rebuilding... blowing FBs... It's all there. If there is a bridge in the middle, so much the better. it can be blown and rebuilt. With BOTH FBs being permanent, one town could directly counter an AO at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Quincannon said:


 Yes this drive would be longer, as it would be all to the way of the forward base, 

That answered my question thank you.

I wouldn’t do the ride. Hence we would keep the current bad situation where we wait for someone to do something alone without grouping up first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think that the idea of swaping FBs for small cottages, farms or villages has been suggested before.

say 4-5 of those between each "town" that are like depots, able to be used as base for misión creation.

Those new FBs have capturable depots of different kinds, but very simple.

Inf spawn wouldnt be easily "campable". Veh stays as current ones.

Once you make a cap the contested warning appears in the map. Enemy CANT recap lost facilities, so attacker can focus on capturing and friendlies on defending. Or multicap all depots if enough men.

The capture is reset by a timer that ticks if no capture activity is in other depots same FB (say 15 min)

Losing any of these new FBs wont close any previous fms. The side not owning it just CANT use for spawning units in that FB.

A side would have 1-4 different spawning points to drive to town (2 near each of the towns)

Since defender cant "recap" a half capped fb, to avoid gamey actions, if you set AO, the contested FBs turn to ENEMY.

May happen rare situations with no fb and AO and still fms up and battle going on, or sides cuting each other using Fbs, owning the 2 fbs more near to the target but not owning the fbs most near to your town, so both sides attacking each other from same town,..

Setting fms to fbs or town would be easier since you have many options.

An underpop side would have more chances to keep attacks going, but much harder to stop them (but to say truth, atm the underpop side is unable to blow an active attack fb with the current damages)

Uhm... hard work for CRS to implement all system, maybe... :D so sorry.

Share this post


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

That answered my question thank you.

I wouldn’t do the ride. Hence we would keep the current bad situation where we wait for someone to do something alone without grouping up first

Not criticizing, but I'm curious... You would rather have the situation where, if the enemy controls FBs you can't even begin to think about attempting an AO until you are able to muster a large enough FB busting party to beat their defense? And at the same time guarantee that they know you're coming and will be ready for you before you can even get to the FB to spawn a truck for the first FMS? You would rather have to spend the hour or mors that this entails and all the effort and likely failure of the FB bust rather than drive a truck from the town to the FB to rebuild it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, stankyus said:

I rather go the route of FBs being esblished like we do the FMS.  That way they have to be located before they can be destroyed.  FB ping pong or using PPOs to interfere with new FBs popping up goes away.  I have also mulled over the position that defensive FBs should be a possibility.  I think with a new set of PPO options you can in fact design your fb and build them out with fortifications.  Some FBs have the Veh spawn opening facing the AO town and not only that, they are in range of long range guns from town or not far from being in range and get camped.  Some of the FBs are in horrible places that put your approach to town or getting away from the FB much more at risk.  I would not place my FB in a bowl.. or like in the case of Huy, that FB can be camped to hell and back but instead I would have it on top of the hill.  Some FBs are not even on the side of the river the origin town or town to be attacked is.

Having thought a LOT about PPO FBs... The main worry that i have is that they would rely on a single player setting them up and staying online at that AO. If they decide to leave the AO and do not name a new ML, the PPO goes away. If we had part and parcel PPO FBs (one player makes Inf and one makes vehicle) How do we ensure that they will work together? Imagine the two spawns on opposite sides of a town. What if no one is willing to drive or spawn an armor FB PPO? It's  really hard to get people to volunteer just to run a FMS to start an AO if we already own FBs sometimes. How would we get enough of them to drive and spawn all the parts of an FB, do it as a team, and keep those PPOs up? Keeping in mind that spawn PPOs are currently linked to an MLs mission, unlike, say a sandbag wall or an ATG Pit.
 

How do we get the numbers to do the job.  to work together, and to stay at that AO throughout the battle, so that the FB PPOs stay up?

The advantage to the current FBs is that, even thought they can be blown, and getting them back afterwards  can be damn near impossible, they ARE still independant of  players. They do not rely on a single player's mission.

S!S!S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is splitting up to multiple ideas/problems/concept changes which are all interesting but get hard to follow and some of them are leading away from the topic. The initial question raised by sudden was how we could minimalize the need for guarding duty while making FBs less prone for surprise attacks.

Of course hotdrop attacks have become much harder due to the new FB setup. So less strict guarding (with 2 guys watching the spawns all the time) is needed. Situation has improved here. Nonetheless there is still need for someone to actively check the rearward and guard the forward FBs - which is a boring job especially at that part of the map where nothing else happens right now (looking at you, lonesome friendly FB at a town the enemy should attack but has not yet put an AO on).

It should be vital to an attack to keep the defenders from breaking out of their town and interdict your supply lines by circumventing you (also known as blowing up the FB of an attack). The possibility to blow up the FB and the need to guard the flanks and rear of your attack ad to the realism and depth of the game. But staying behind and watching a treeline doesn't add much to the fun.

So I would come back to my initial suggestions of visible AOs on FBs or at least system warnings if a FB takes damage. At least if it's connected to an AO. Let "system" do the grunt job of depot guarding behind the frontline. You'd still have to actively defend an allready damaged FB - more so if it's vital to an attack. You can still blow that one up and kill the attack. I am willing to spawn at such a FB and help defending it and I don't need walls for that. But I am not willing to hang around half an hour of my game time at a quiet FB with only the birds chirping from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quincannon said:

First, I have to wonder when the FBs started being easy to blow again. Unless something changed this week, all it takes to guard FBs is someone clicking on owned FBs and typing  .own in a few times. The moment they see any percentage of damage they send in their buddies. Wham bam! Unless the FB busters have 3-4 MG guys watching the infantry spawn like hawks, the FB bust is likely to get put out of its misery but fast. It's not like the old days when a 3 man team could actually blow an FB in a reasonable amount of time.

So to make it even harder, the idea is to wall in FBs with a wall that has a ton of AI gates? I agree with some that it sounds like putting the barrel around the fish.

Heck, I seriously think that the best way to resolve any issues with FBs is to make all FBs permanently up, but destroyable/  and rebuildable (Not capturable) This would create reasons for rebuilding missions; for interdiction missions; for  counter-AOs on attacking towns, and more. Think about it... the only way someone could prevent  a side form having their FB is to send troops there to blow it up and then to keep it from being rebuilt.

 Best of all, the mechanics for how missions work, for spawning from FBs, for supply., for blowing the FBs... all of these would remain the same. The only necessary changes would be to make the FBs permanent; to give them a  destroyed state; and to add coding to make them rebuildable once they were blown up.

The thread is here: http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/417227-persistent-rebuildable-fbs/

The prize on offer for capture mechanics is that it stops being combat avoidance ninja tactics and becomes full frontal assault mode as well as ninja 

 

The worse thing about the current fb mechanic is not that FBs get blown, it’s that to destroy a FB, it has to be unguarded or not adequately guarded. Players cannot assault a FB, you can’t overpower a FB, it can only be ninja’d. Such mechanisms don’t align well with the broad principle of a PvP warfare game 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.