Sudden

The FB Dilemma Solved

41 posts in this topic

I won't argue that, but it seems much harder to implement to me. That doesn't mean we can work towards that... "soon".

Share this post


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

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 

Well, that depends, Silky. If all you want is for everyone to play pretty much exactly the same way (exaggeration here) i.e charge at each other blasting away, be it with smg or tank, and ALL there is to do id shoot each other period. Then I would agree.

On the other hand, one of the great things about this game (and a major reason I play this compared to my other favorite WWII game options) Is that in this game you CAN play in other ways. The idea that you can play JUST a truck driver (I.E. I tow folks or I drive an FMS in, set it and hand it off so I can drive another one in - rinse and repeat), or a Mortarman, or an Engineer and repair and blow things up, is amazing. Some folks prefer support roles to direct combat.

Heck, the minute I start hearing people tell me that my ONLY job should be to "get out and start shooting", and anything else I do is "hurting our side", it makes me want to stay logged off.

This is supposed to be a BETTER WWII sim/game. Part of that is allowing for other options to help our side. Do I agree that blowing an FB during an attack can ruin fun for a lot of folks? Yes. But do I believe that the tactic should be a possibility? A resounding yes! Blowing bridges. Repairing AI. Blowing CPs, Resupplying other players with ammo. Building PPOs and defenses. These all should exist to ENHANCE the combat game. (I don't call it PVP because, the truth be told, I'd be here if we were fighting bots. Heck I'd prefer it because we would all be playing on the same side. I don't like the idea of PVP, but it's that or single player only and I love WWII games with other players.)

All that said, the fact still remains that right now, NO ONE ever really has to guard an empty FB anymore. With the extended damage requirement, it still takes a team about 10 minutes to blow an FB IF there are enough of them. The fact is that all a side has to do to pretty much guarabntee that they never have an FB blown is to keep checking their FBs with  the .own command. The second you see damage... send in your troops. It makes every one of your troops worth at least two, because those guys can keep on doing other stuff and all they have to do is respond to the FB, kill the busters and go back to what they were doing.

As for ME.. Never, ever again will I use that command. I'm done with it, an for the same reason that I have never used a tow account. If I play, I'm doing it with one SPAWNED IN  avatar... If I have to guard something, that's how I'm going to do it.: Spawned in and guarding. If I have to use an ATG and no one will tow me, and it's too far to push, then I guess  that gun won't be in the fight. People argue for realism, but want to play by remote. That's not beating me in a fair fight. I will probably always lose because I won't match people that way. But no one can say I never fought as fairly as possible.

Share this post


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

Well, that depends, Silky. If all you want is for everyone to play pretty much exactly the same way (exaggeration here) i.e charge at each other blasting away, be it with smg or tank, and ALL there is to do id shoot each other period. Then I would agree.

On the other hand, one of the great things about this game (and a major reason I play this compared to my other favorite WWII game options) Is that in this game you CAN play in other ways. The idea that you can play JUST a truck driver (I.E. I tow folks or I drive an FMS in, set it and hand it off so I can drive another one in - rinse and repeat), or a Mortarman, or an Engineer and repair and blow things up, is amazing. Some folks prefer support roles to direct combat.

Heck, the minute I start hearing people tell me that my ONLY job should be to "get out and start shooting", and anything else I do is "hurting our side", it makes me want to stay logged off.

This is supposed to be a BETTER WWII sim/game. Part of that is allowing for other options to help our side. Do I agree that blowing an FB during an attack can ruin fun for a lot of folks? Yes. But do I believe that the tactic should be a possibility? A resounding yes! Blowing bridges. Repairing AI. Blowing CPs, Resupplying other players with ammo. Building PPOs and defenses. These all should exist to ENHANCE the combat game. (I don't call it PVP because, the truth be told, I'd be here if we were fighting bots. Heck I'd prefer it because we would all be playing on the same side. I don't like the idea of PVP, but it's that or single player only and I love WWII games with other players.)

All that said, the fact still remains that right now, NO ONE ever really has to guard an empty FB anymore. With the extended damage requirement, it still takes a team about 10 minutes to blow an FB IF there are enough of them. The fact is that all a side has to do to pretty much guarabntee that they never have an FB blown is to keep checking their FBs with  the .own command. The second you see damage... send in your troops. It makes every one of your troops worth at least two, because those guys can keep on doing other stuff and all they have to do is respond to the FB, kill the busters and go back to what they were doing.

As for ME.. Never, ever again will I use that command. I'm done with it, an for the same reason that I have never used a tow account. If I play, I'm doing it with one SPAWNED IN  avatar... If I have to guard something, that's how I'm going to do it.: Spawned in and guarding. If I have to use an ATG and no one will tow me, and it's too far to push, then I guess  that gun won't be in the fight. People argue for realism, but want to play by remote. That's not beating me in a fair fight. I will probably always lose because I won't match people that way. But no one can say I never fought as fairly as possible.

The change I’m proposing doesn’t necessitate a tactics change, it adds more options. Currently it is only ninja. Changing it would allow both ninja and assault 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to elaborate on the gate and murder hole argument. The wall around the FB, The gates, The murder hole "must be blown" idea is an effort towards more fun in game and more realistic attacks/defenses. All of these ideas coming from a point of view where I see pre-drilled holes in an AB wall as unrealistic, Gates left open being unrealistic, and perimeter breach non-existent at a FB being unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st of , putting a wall or a cone or whatever u want to call it around an FB you might not even start an AO cause you just gave the EA bombers a big fat bullseye, you really don't need to aim anymore just make sure to land the bombs in that octagon.

 

Now  why not just eliminate all the FB marks on the maps ( I doubt someone has them all memorized )  

It make them harder to find  ( sure CRS would have to recode how to set an FMS out of town but it would be doable I think)

Then set Vehicle and INF spawn farther apart from each other also redesign the FBs that the big Vehicle Spawn gets one of those neat pillboxes close by that serves as a secondary INF spawn , also add a 2 space Vehicle tent close to the INF spawn as a secondary spawn point for vehicles and such , ( it will make camping an FB all of a sudden  so much harder) .

 

In my experience  I run into resistence 50% of the time and that's on FBs that are not even close to an AO , so I don't see why we need to make super drastic changes.

Alone taking the FB icons of the maps would make a big difference  ( I think) myself  , I maybe know a handful of FBs and their locations , for others I have to pull up the map and make mission and click them as my target.

Biggest hurdle would be CRS figuring out how to be able to set an FMS out in the countryside without having a target on a mission, the pillbox bunkers are in game might have to add another exit to it, and getting a 1 or 2 Vehicle Spawn point tent closer to the INF spawn can't be to complicated either.

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dre21 said:

1st of , putting a wall or a cone or whatever u want to call it around an FB you might not even start an AO cause you just gave the EA bombers a big fat bullseye, you really don't need to aim anymore just make sure to land the bombs in that octagon.

 

Now  why not just eliminate all the FB marks on the maps ( I doubt someone has them all memorized )  

It make them harder to find  ( sure CRS would have to recode how to set an FMS out of town but it would be doable I think)

Then set Vehicle and INF spawn farther apart from each other also redesign the FBs that the big Vehicle Spawn gets one of those neat pillboxes close by that serves as a secondary INF spawn , also add a 2 space Vehicle tent close to the INF spawn as a secondary spawn point for vehicles and such , ( it will make camping an FB all of a sudden  so much harder) .

 

In my experience  I run into resistence 50% of the time and that's on FBs that are not even close to an AO , so I don't see why we need to make super drastic changes.

Alone taking the FB icons of the maps would make a big difference  ( I think) myself  , I maybe know a handful of FBs and their locations , for others I have to pull up the map and make mission and click them as my target.

Biggest hurdle would be CRS figuring out how to be able to set an FMS out in the countryside without having a target on a mission, the pillbox bunkers are in game might have to add another exit to it, and getting a 1 or 2 Vehicle Spawn point tent closer to the INF spawn can't be to complicated either.

EA will always know where the FB is regardless of maps or visual id. They simply don't move. These aren't super drastic changes with the exception of the coding work which is not even available right now. This is just a concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "concept" of the FB seems outdated now.  We need a new mechanic or somrthing to that effect.  FB's shouldnt even be required to attack a town if the linking town is owned by the attacker. 

If the FB is up...........then great its a place to spawn heavy guns, tanks etc..... from,  but if its taken down the attack should still be able to take place on the AO'ed town.  You want your tanks and heavy guns closer then take back the FB but let the attack continue from the FMS that are in the field per usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But flyboys don't take down FBs,  ground pounders do.

Ain't that your whole reason for having this discussion? 

They can find/ see the FB like they should , I just don't see a need to give them a walled FB where it's now even harder to get away from Bombs they drop. 

Share this post


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

But flyboys don't take down FBs,  ground pounders do.

Ain't that your whole reason for having this discussion? 

They can find/ see the FB like they should , I just don't see a need to give them a walled FB where it's now even harder to get away from Bombs they drop. 

i never mentioned flyboys.

with 8 exits you have plenty of ways to get out, the wall doesn't wall "you" in.

a wall is also a good he blocker, ever die to a bomb dropped outside of the ab wall when you sat next to the wall on the inside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I die from Bombs no matter where I sit , most times or not I don't even know where it came from .  So I can't say I did or didn't . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inf should have graffiti ability for the walls. Don't know what they'd use for writing, but might liven things up. Higher your rank, the more characters you can use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of this idea, seems overly gamey and outside of how this game tries approach things in terms of realism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, choad said:

Not a fan of this idea, seems overly gamey and outside of how this game tries approach things in terms of realism

No idea is ever perfect but do consider these scenario's first:

You are in command of the AB, The gates don't work and there are holes in the walls. Do you A, ignore the problem, or B, put some engineers to work fixing the gate and the holes?

You are in command of a FB. You have no perimeter defense whatsoever. The enemy can just walk on in. Do you A, setup some barbed wire or at least a fence (or wall), or B, do nothing about it?

I think my idea is less gamey and far closer to reality than choice A. It is more in line with what a commander would demand of his engineers and soldiers. You are in enemy territory, you don't just leave the doors open and the walls full of holes.

Edited by Sudden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FBs to active AO towns should not be able to be destroyed.

What does that model?  I'd like to see the real world simulation where a truck and a couple engrs stopped an attack.

(bridge, sure... crossroads sure...  big hill sure... FB.... not so sure)

 

This would also allow the FBs to be destroyed with a lot less charges on the non AO towns - i.e. go back to the 8 charges per VEH/INF.

 

I'd prefer no FBs on map, and instead one FBPPO allowed to be placed by HC per flag. (and that FBPPO not destroyable)

 

Share this post


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

FBs to active AO towns should not be able to be destroyed.

What does that model?  I'd like to see the real world simulation where a truck and a couple engrs stopped an attack.

(bridge, sure... crossroads sure...  big hill sure... FB.... not so sure)

 

This would also allow the FBs to be destroyed with a lot less charges on the non AO towns - i.e. go back to the 8 charges per VEH/INF.

 

I'd prefer no FBs on map, and instead one FBPPO allowed to be placed by HC per flag. (and that FBPPO not destroyable)

 

I kinda like the idea except what if no hc on, everything grinds to halt. Plus game seems to be moving to some hybrid system to lessen depedence on hc.

I also i am not sure how i would feel about fb's not being able to be destroyed. That is a fun game dynamic to me.

Edited by choad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** I kinda like the idea except what if no hc on, everything grinds to halt. 

Not really, you just have to drive MS from town instead of a closer FBPPO.  Or use paras.

 

One thing we could maybe do, is allow the FBPPO to be destroyed by bombs, say 20 hits in the FBPPO area, but only if those bombs are released from say over 4-5km high.

This might bring back a reason for bombers to be high in the sky to bomb a target, and good reason for fighters to be up there?  i.e. boost the air game?
 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.