• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      RAT Chat Sunday 12/8 3pm server time!!!!   12/07/2019

      CRS is working overtime preparing and setting up the NEW SERVERS at the Portland colocation. This Sunday, December 8th, at 3:00 pm CST/9:00 pm GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). XOOM and the RATs are hosting a live chat discussing the move, and what services will be temporarily impacted in the process. Live chat link will be provided in discord channels when available. We look forward to chatting with you!
dre21

Let AAA and ATG build their own PPO

15 posts in this topic

Let be honest how often have you wished you could have 2 or 3 sides or even 4 sides enclosed around your AAA or ATG  without having to rely on an Engineer.

It would be great,  if we would get the option of building our own PPO around our AAA or ATG. 

The way I figure , you use the commander and look into the direction you would like to build , then hit D or  Z and it gives you the 1st option of PPO, I think interlocking treestumps, sandbags, or dirtmounds depending on terrain you can choose to blend in , cause we have different size AAA and ATG these options vary in size , with backspace you would change your option and then build it to your situation and liking . If you want to stay mobile you would obviously keep it to a minimum to none existing,  to when u want to dig in and establish a killing zone then you would protect 2 or 3 sides maybe even all 4 just so u can shoot over it or leave an opening to have a escape route.

You would be able to take it down if you wanted to move but it would take a bit of time if u wanted to move .

 

Edited by dre21
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would appreciate everything that could encourage ATG players to be more static with decreased need for playing "sneak around". ATGs being able to build PPOs would be a step in that direction.

While camouflage and suprise played a big role in the effective setup for an ATG, I don't think most ATG crews were running across the battlefield, pushing their ATGs through bushlines to actively get behind a tank that had been spotted.

Sure - the survivability of a detected ATG should be low- but not that low. PPOs should increase the difficulty for enemy tanks to kill an ATG if it has an effective defensive position set up. And of course it should take some time to set it up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I don't think most ATG crews were running across the battlefield, pushing their ATGs through bushlines to actively get behind a tank that had been spotted.

Stop, you are making me picture funny things, and i hate soda up my nose. :) 
You dont want to know what i just had visions of, but it came with benny hill music



While this would not be HARD cover, i wonder what a PPO, of somewhat circular fashion, consisting of short (gunner can see over) and tall grasses
and maybe some small bush pieces, with a large enough clear area in the center where the ATG can deploy without sticking himself outside of it
might do?

Would be no need to worry about how to remove it to get out of it, and the fact some are left behind means you cant really guess
if that grass / bush thing is an ATG or not, you will need to either go round wasting ammo on every clump of grass, take your chances, or do proper scouting
and observation.

ATG is not absolutely hidden, no ninja stealth mode because the same shorter grass that lets the gunner have firing positions he can see over 
also lets the observant see in if he bothers.

Wont work for an 88, but then you dont really hide an 88, you use distance, though a camo net for air cover
would be nice for the 88 (with a good camo colour pallet that blends in some)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was an actual dispersion simulating mechanical failures and wind effects, ATGs would survive longer as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a suggestion that ultimately reduces teamwork.

In a teamwork scenario, multiple players assist each other. One guns, one tows. One fires mortar, one hands ammo. One has tank, other runs out truck. One guns, one builds defenses.

To reduce the game such that every player can do their own thing is more immediately pleasing to the individual player, but ultimately reduces the teamwork-based gameplay.

However, I will acknowledge that there are population issues to consider: if there isn't anyone around able to put in the teamwork, that argument falls apart.

 

Just something to consider, whether you value "teamwork-based gameplay" over "self-sufficient and/or guaranteed gratification".

Share this post


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

This is a suggestion that ultimately reduces teamwork.

In a teamwork scenario, multiple players assist each other. One guns, one tows. One fires mortar, one hands ammo. One has tank, other runs out truck. One guns, one builds defenses.

To reduce the game such that every player can do their own thing is more immediately pleasing to the individual player, but ultimately reduces the teamwork-based gameplay.

However, I will acknowledge that there are population issues to consider: if there isn't anyone around able to put in the teamwork, that argument falls apart.

 

Just something to consider, whether you value "teamwork-based gameplay" over "self-sufficient and/or guaranteed gratification".

Agreed.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think somewhere between 30-50% of players are not in squads, so there is limited opportunities for team work, as most people, in my experience, do not offer to help pothers unless they are squad mates.  Also, there is not a game mechanism to identify when help is needed, other than chat.  4 out of 5 times when I announce I am towing, need engineers or paras or something, no one shows up.  So if rats want team work, is will need to be made mandatory or highly beneficial, otherwise there really wont be much of it.

Edited by GrAnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25.5.2018 at 11:25 PM, chaoswzkd said:

However, I will acknowledge that there are population issues to consider: if there isn't anyone around able to put in the teamwork, that argument falls apart.

I think we all agree that in an ideal ww2online-world we would have 6-12 players working together to set up an FMS as a defensive position with ATGs, LMGs and the according PPOs built by dedicated engineers and shoveling riflemen. Like you pointed out, that falls apart if you only have 20-30 people performing the whole attack.

To get the best of both worlds it could be implemented that engineers can build the same stuff - but way faster than an ATG or AA gun that's building stuff on its own.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 4:25 PM, chaoswzkd said:

This is a suggestion that ultimately reduces teamwork.

In a teamwork scenario, multiple players assist each other. One guns, one tows. One fires mortar, one hands ammo. One has tank, other runs out truck. One guns, one builds defenses.

To reduce the game such that every player can do their own thing is more immediately pleasing to the individual player, but ultimately reduces the teamwork-based gameplay.

However, I will acknowledge that there are population issues to consider: if there isn't anyone around able to put in the teamwork, that argument falls apart.

 

Just something to consider, whether you value "teamwork-based gameplay" over "self-sufficient and/or guaranteed gratification".

Team work was thrown out the window by old CRS crew when they took points away for towing and running INF to the Frontline and then introduced the FRU ( soldier out of a box) which in turn killed the Tanking game cause now you had ML just waiting as Rifleman for Tanks to roll in set up FRU spawn in as Sapper and rinse and repeat. 

 

Sure I would love if we could and would all work together like we should but after all its a game . I doubt some player as an Engineer wants to run along with an ATG just  so he can build him a fortification. 

In real a PAK crew was not just 2 guys but a whole slew of guys , so in other words let them set up fortifications just make it a bit slower in build time . 

Most ATG players that take their time and push out of town or run a FMS and then spawn in an ATG for ambush should have a better chance of survival with being able to build some sort of cover .  Heck with the sh^t I died here and next spawn in I'll mark it on the map for everyone to see feature it's the least we should get.

Due to the ability in game to mark stuff and use chat and voice IP , it's hard enough to set ambushes without having EA or a INF come to your spot in an instance .

Remember the dead were not able to talk but it's not like that in game . Once u kill ur pos is pretty much announced to the player base . 

So to build and move and rebuild and get protected and hidden would be a great survival tool for the AAA and ATG players.

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 0:55 PM, vanapo said:

To get the best of both worlds it could be implemented that engineers can build the same stuff - but way faster than an ATG or AA gun that's building stuff on its own.

I think I like this option the best.

 

On 5/30/2018 at 9:34 AM, dre21 said:

Team work was thrown out the window by old CRS crew when they took points away for towing and running INF to the Frontline and then introduced the FRU ( soldier out of a box) which in turn killed the Tanking game cause now you had ML just waiting as Rifleman for Tanks to roll in set up FRU spawn in as Sapper and rinse and repeat. 

 

Sure I would love if we could and would all work together like we should but after all its a game . I doubt some player as an Engineer wants to run along with an ATG just  so he can build him a fortification. 

In real a PAK crew was not just 2 guys but a whole slew of guys , so in other words let them set up fortifications just make it a bit slower in build time . 

Most ATG players that take their time and push out of town or run a FMS and then spawn in an ATG for ambush should have a better chance of survival with being able to build some sort of cover .  Heck with the sh^t I died here and next spawn in I'll mark it on the map for everyone to see feature it's the least we should get.

Due to the ability in game to mark stuff and use chat and voice IP , it's hard enough to set ambushes without having EA or a INF come to your spot in an instance .

Remember the dead were not able to talk but it's not like that in game . Once u kill ur pos is pretty much announced to the player base . 

So to build and move and rebuild and get protected and hidden would be a great survival tool for the AAA and ATG players.

Most of your argument seems to be about realism, not teamwork. Dead players communicating isn't realistic, but it's a definite plus for teamwork, which is desired.

PAK crews being crewed by more than 2 guys did happen irl, but allowing the invisible, abstract crew in the game to build defenses still removes a teamwork element.

Idk why CRS removed points for towing. Possibly because it's exploitable but I really don't know. I think it should be brought back, but with some caveats to avoid exploits, as it awards teamwork.

 

As vanapo suggested, I think the best move is probably to allow AAA/ATG to build their own stuff, but at a very reduced speed. Then give whatever they can build to Engineers, which build at regular speeds. This allows for better solo play, but still incentivizes teamwork.

Share this post


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

Then give whatever they can build to Engineers, which build at regular speeds.

Id like to see engineer + reload range detected = decrease cooldown on PPO 75%
and some way for the truck to be able to score something for being involved.
Previously you scored points for TOM, maybe could do something based off that with some modifiers for trucks and haulers.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.