Mosizlak

It's time...

26 posts in this topic

...to make FBs always be up. Every FB across the map should be up at all times. 

Every single player we have sitting, watching an FB, is a player that should be out actively attacking or defending, not waiting for players who only want to put explosives on tents. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons for keeping FBs bustable was as a viable tactic for the underpop side to defend against odds they would otherwise stand no chance against.  However, with the introduction of dynamic cap timers, I don't believe this should remain as a crutch for the underpop side.  

 

All FB busting does is act as a barrier to battles.  Either you are blowing an FB to an active AO where people are playing the game, or you are trying to blow an FB in order to set a future AO where people can play the game (and the people who sit there and watch FB damage are basically preventing others from generating the most basic form of content, i.e. setting up attacks).  

 

Additionally, once a brigade runs out of engineers, it severely hampers that brigade's ability to attack if the FBs aren't already under your control.  That's just not good for the health of the game.  

 

I agree that this is something that needs looking into.  

Edited by Capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FB models should be completely redone. Based on a concept with multiple rural buildings where both vehicles and inf would Spawn randomly (like the current barracks). This would decrease camping occurance and favor Real rural battles.

FBs should be unavaible if the origin is contested thought. 

Bomb effects should also be thought about (e.g. temporary desabling of vehicle spawning when having a destroyed veh Spawn state, but that can be repaired by engineers)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the question is what happens if a town is under attack and the defenders spawn at their FB and deploy FMS or armour to suppress the FB attacking their town 

 

Could be stupid, could be interesting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if we could in the future start filling in between towns and make capture points like multiple FBs and instead of blowing them up, you capture them and they will always be hot. We have a lot of real estate between towns that isn’t  fought over that could be better utilized 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At one point, we did discuss that when you have an AO placed that your FB would be invincible. The goal was to preserve the attack and keep the missions alive.

We have preserved the attacks substantially already by comparison when it used to only take 3 sappers and 12 satchels to take a whole FB down.

Share this post


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

At one point, we did discuss that when you have an AO placed that your FB would be invincible. The goal was to preserve the attack and keep the missions alive.

We have preserved the attacks substantially already by comparison when it used to only take 3 sappers and 12 satchels to take a whole FB down.

The point is possibly that the current mechanism still draws players away from PvP areas of the game. Too often we’re either seeing players guarding FBs against attacks that don’t come, or we’re tying players down to take down FBs which aren’t defended 

Share this post


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

The point is possibly that the current mechanism still draws players away from PvP areas of the game. Too often we’re either seeing players guarding FBs against attacks that don’t come, or we’re tying players down to take down FBs which aren’t defended 

Well to be fair the game isn't 100% intended to be PvP. There are many different demographics we try to cater to, which makes things pretty hard in decision making. Each action has a consequence that needs to be balanced pretty carefully. What will we say when we restore re-supply and interdiction operations? Will we find a way to take that away too?

Just food for thought here, gotta look at the big picture and all of the little dependencies that don't necessarily come to mind at first.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

...to make FBs always be up. Every FB across the map should be up at all times. 

Every single player we have sitting, watching an FB, is a player that should be out actively attacking or defending, not waiting for players who only want to put explosives on tents. 

that's like thinking every single player who is guarding a bunker/cp  should be out doing whatever else. what is that but waiting for players who only want to 'cap cps'?

maybe get rid of RDP too, because that's for players who 'only want to fly planes and bomb factories'. probably should get rid of aaa as well because that's for players who 'only want to blow up planes'. and for sure get rid of mobile spawns because that's for players 'who only want to camp' fms.' and while you're at it rid of depots because those are for players who 'only want to be depot sniperzors'. 

whats different about guarding a fb than guarding a cp or bunker? what's different about blowing a fb than capping a cp? its all the same mechanics. weren't fbs originally put in game because players said 'its too far to drive/walk' to the fight? 

better to get rid of them than make them invincible.  that would just be more opportunity to camp fbs and routes from them, which already is half the game - cutting fbs, tracking/reporting trucks/tanks from fbs, calling in air to suppress fbs, calling for aaa to kill the ea suppressing fbs/killing trucks and tanks out of fb and so on. of course, then people would complain about players 'who only want to camp fbs'. (which is half the pilots on each side). 

or just rethink the fb concept as mentioned above - multiple sequences between towns, or mobile, player-placed fbs, or area/zone capture mechanics between towns with no fbs at all. 

but be careful what  you wish for - if the only focus becomes attack town, cap cps or sit in cps and defend town you'll have a stagnant game that doesn't use 90% of the map. you can see it now with new players - they set dfms outside of town, they play outside of town - its the reason the vets are either dying of boredom guarding spawn cps or crying out in chat: 'no one guarded the spawn?' 

its boring and tiresome to hear opinions over and over as to 'what players want' - every player wants a different thing and if he/she pays for it, let them do it and stop trying to be prescriptive. 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

that's like thinking every single player who is guarding a bunker/cp  should be out doing whatever else. what is that but waiting for players who only want to 'cap cps'?

maybe get rid of RDP too, because that's for players who 'only want to fly planes and bomb factories'. probably should get rid of aaa as well because that's for players who 'only want to blow up planes'. and for sure get rid of mobile spawns because that's for players 'who only want to camp' fms.' and while you're at it rid of depots because those are for players who 'only want to be depot sniperzors'. 

whats different about guarding a fb than guarding a cp or bunker? what's different about blowing a fb than capping a cp? its all the same mechanics. weren't fbs originally put in game because players said 'its too far to drive/walk' to the fight? 

better to get rid of them than make them invincible.  that would just be more opportunity to camp fbs and routes from them, which already is half the game - cutting fbs, tracking/reporting trucks/tanks from fbs, calling in air to suppress fbs, calling for aaa to kill the ea suppressing fbs/killing trucks and tanks out of fb and so on. of course, then people would complain about players 'who only want to camp fbs'. (which is half the pilots on each side). 

or just rethink the fb concept as mentioned above - multiple sequences between towns, or mobile, player-placed fbs, or area/zone capture mechanics between towns with no fbs. 

but be careful what  you wish for - if the only focus becomes attack town, cap cps or sit in cps and defend town you'll have a stagnant game that doesn't use 90% of the map. you can see it now with new players - they set dfms outside of town, they play outside of town - its the reason the vets are either dying of boredom guarding spawn cps or crying out in chat: 'no one guarded the spawn?'

its boring and tiresome to hear opinions over and over as to 'what players want' - every player wants a different thing and if he/she pays for it, let them do it and stop trying to be prescriptive. 

 

 

I think there is a problem with the FB as a mechanic, even if I don’t personally subscribe to the idea of permanent FBs

 

FBs do not currently encourage PvP, a function of the detonate/demolition attack requirement, which makes all-out assault non-viable and lends itself to ninja tactics and combat avoidance.

The requirement for FB attack and defence to be precisely balanced also hugely detracts from the gameplay. If you’re a defender trying to hold against stronger attacking force, you end up sniped over and over as you spawn in. If the situation’s reversed, and you’re a weaker attacking force against a rugged defence, you can almost guarantee you won’t get it down. That balance to generate rewarding play is very fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just link the FB to EWS and drop the number of charges needed. 

 

Things will get much more exciting.

Edited by Sudden

Share this post


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

I think there is a problem with the FB as a mechanic, even if I don’t personally subscribe to the idea of permanent FBs

 

FBs do not currently encourage PvP, a function of the detonate/demolition attack requirement, which makes all-out assault non-viable and lends itself to ninja tactics and combat avoidance.

The requirement for FB attack and defence to be precisely balanced also hugely detracts from the gameplay. If you’re a defender trying to hold against stronger attacking force, you end up sniped over and over as you spawn in. If the situation’s reversed, and you’re a weaker attacking force against a rugged defence, you can almost guarantee you won’t get it down. That balance to generate rewarding play is very fine. 

Many of my favorite game moments are on FB missions, both attacking and defending (and in one case running into the team on the other side who was doing the same about 1/2 to the fb)... Just because YOU don't like them doesn't mean no one does.  Quite honestly given the choice of battle I'll take the terrain driven fights around a FB vs building to building in town any day of the week. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, B2K said:

Many of my favorite game moments are on FB missions, both attacking and defending (and in one case running into the team on the other side who was doing the same about 1/2 to the fb)... Just because YOU don't like them doesn't mean no one does.  Quite honestly given the choice of battle I'll take the terrain driven fights around a FB vs building to building in town any day of the week. 

just because YOU like them doesn't mean another gameplay mechanic wouldn't be 1) superior and 2) more enjoyable by you - too. nor does it guarantee that either of course but something existing that some poeple like doesn't or shouldn't trump a well thought out new design.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FB's should fall and there should always be a battle to accomplish the felling. The only thing bad about FB's is the guarding. Put an EWS on the FB and you still get to take it down but not so easily as when the PB gets bored of sitting at it like a canary in a mine. "Enemy Forces Spotted near X FB" If you don't heed the call you put the FB in easy mode. With an EWS you let the people who come to the game to fight, fight. Everybody wins and we're all so happy we cycle off to isis territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, B2K said:

Many of my favorite game moments are on FB missions, both attacking and defending (and in one case running into the team on the other side who was doing the same about 1/2 to the fb)... Just because YOU don't like them doesn't mean no one does.  Quite honestly given the choice of battle I'll take the terrain driven fights around a FB vs building to building in town any day of the week. 

And moving to a capture mechanic would not stop those players who thrive on the ninja game. But it would offer an alternative to combat avoidance tactics 

 

And it would open up a thousand combat flash points across the map, open to all players who in numerous equipment, independent of AOs and largely independent of TOES

Share this post


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

I wonder if we could in the future start filling in between towns and make capture points like multiple FBs and instead of blowing them up, you capture them and they will always be hot. We have a lot of real estate between towns that isn’t  fought over that could be better utilized 

+1.

To make it even better, eliminate the primacy of towns, other than for their economic value. Rename ABs, FBs and Depots with some universal name indicating their functional equality--I'll use "reference point". Plug in extra FBs when there are extra large gaps between existing FBs. Add an FB at each end of every bridge.

In such a system, every reference point is adjacent-linked to at least two other reference points. Have all spawning occur from any friendly-owned reference point that's not adjacent to an enemy-owned reference point. Ownership of a reference point can only be gained if it's adjacent to another friendly reference point.

Then combat would just progress across the map. The side being pushed back would decide where to make a stand, maybe based on favorable terrain and the defensibility of their supply lines against enemy infiltrators.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

just because YOU like them doesn't mean another gameplay mechanic wouldn't be 1) superior and 2) more enjoyable by you - too. nor does it guarantee that either of course but something existing that some poeple like doesn't or shouldn't trump a well thought out new design.

exactly - different people like different things. 

Having points between the current towns which can be contested serve to expand the battlefield.  Personally I would love to see a capture FB Vs the current mechanic, and I've been advocating that internally (always equi-distant and an odd number (though for close towns would be 1)).  Mostly from the perspective of being able to better identify a front line as well as to allow for a smoother flow for battles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

generally agreed, and i'd personally prefer if the FBs and one day maybe the ground between them be captured via vehicles primarily or perhaps captured faster via vehicles. much like RDP is good for the airwar as it draws planes away from purely CAS, if vehicles are expected to capture and maintain ground then they'll have less time to suppress spawns. or perhaps said better, they'll have incentive to do other jobs not directly related to popping squishies in spawns.

 

if those captures can be tied to the CP over/under pop logic in theory we've got more means of managing pop imbalances. flip side of that coin though is open ground = needs more vehicles to cover and could by nature favor over pop. so idk how to nip that one in the bud.

Share this post


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

 

The requirement for FB attack and defence to be precisely balanced also hugely detracts from the gameplay. If you’re a defender trying to hold against stronger attacking force, you end up sniped over and over as you spawn in. If the situation’s reversed, and you’re a weaker attacking force against a rugged defence, you can almost guarantee you won’t get it down. That balance to generate rewarding play is very fine. 

and this balance requirement is different than (say) one defender trying to defend a spawn cp against 2 cappers and a cutter exactly how?

capturable fbs, control zones or capture points between towns, moveable fbs, multiple fb/spawn points between towns - all good options. 

its sounds like its the static predictable part that annoys ppl - kind of like those towns that have one or two faraway meaningless depots that everybody knows the enemy will try to cap and only a few will bother to defend. and woe to the underpop side in all cases. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have to see a FB as an oversized and oversupplied FMS I think that points to the solution.

As you spawn a truck from a town and placed a fms, the more trucks you drive and despawn on that FMS the bigger it would become and the more supply it would allow you to spawn, so at the final stage it would become an FB.. 

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

...to make FBs always be up. Every FB across the map should be up at all times. 

Every single player we have sitting, watching an FB, is a player that should be out actively attacking or defending, not waiting for players who only want to put explosives on tents. 

I'm not 100% sure how you would keep them all open?
I guess you could start off with each side owning the FB that is closest to its town
Then you roll out to the other FB, and attack it and if you wreck it, it does not vanish, it becomes yours.
Not exactly sure how hard that would be to change nor how it would play out, on some long distance runs the FBs can be quite a distance apart

Id kind of like to let the players assemble the FBs
Give them limits on how close they can be to an enemy town and how close they can be to an enemy FB
And let them be assembled where and as needed.

I guess you could either do some large spawn pool AB type thing, limited to one per town at a given time
or maybe downsize it a bit, and do a depot type spawn list (with armor of course, but the lesser depot numbers)
and let every mission set up a small FB, which would kind of let you set up front lines out in the countryside and what not.
Hill 301 just became important, because it overlooks the road and bridge, and some guy has guns up there :) 
You'd have to work out branching spawns so FMS would still be possible

Myself, id like to make them harder, hard enough to allow for bombers to hit them again without it just being ping pong.

Dunno, may not play out well though. What if no one wants to go out and setup FBs?

Share this post


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

and this balance requirement is different than (say) one defender trying to defend a spawn cp against 2 cappers and a cutter exactly how?

capturable fbs, control zones or capture points between towns, moveable fbs, multiple fb/spawn points between towns - all good options. 

its sounds like its the static predictable part that annoys ppl - kind of like those towns that have one or two faraway meaningless depots that everybody knows the enemy will try to cap and only a few will bother to defend. and woe to the underpop side in all cases. 

 

It differs from other elements in the game in that different tactics work when attacking a CP whereas they don’t work when attacking a FB. All players can assist in attacking a CP, of all ranks, carrying all weapons. One can attack a CP with surprise, with ninja, with assault force, by trickery, one can use smoke, grenades - the whole gamut of game elements can be used to capture the CP. 

Options when attacking a FB are much more limited because the Engineer unit is a fragile rifleman, of limited numbers available to only some of the playerbase. You can’t as reasonably bring overwhelming force to a FB and knock it out. 

 

And i’m Not necessarily arguing that the above are problems in every context - variation is good - but the upshot of the above is that gameplay suffers for the reason Mo originally points out - the end result is a gameplay mini-system that leaves players sat at FBs mostly doing nothing but watching bushes or leaves players spawning trucks and either spending 20 minutes solo blowing a FB or tying up 2/3 others for 10 minutes blowing a FB.

And it’s this loss of player manhours that the game can’t afford right now. I feel we’d do better if all available players who want to PvP get clustered roughly together in order to provide content for one another, not go off single player playing mini-games 

The current FB set up doesn’t broadly encourage or reward attacking, which in turn doesn’t broadly encourage or reward defending. So the few players who do either are, for the most part, not contributing to the opposing side’s content. 

Share this post


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

 

. You can’t as reasonably bring overwhelming force to a FB and knock it out. 

> if and when its important enough a fb, that's exactly what the aggressive and/or organized and/or overpop does <

 I feel we’d do better if all available players who want to PvP get clustered roughly together in order to provide content for one another, not go off single player playing mini-games 

> yes well you've hit the existential game issue on the head: not enough available players - which is and always has been the core issue > when/if enough players, everyone has variations, combined arms, and mini-games, to wit: 

  • rdp
  • meaningful cas/cap 
  • trucking & towing
  • fbs
  • supply, resupply and interdiction
  • zones of control 
  • long detailed town fights
  • etc etc. 

so the difficult complex point for CRS/New Rats/dedicated players is how to adjust all the (what have become) irritants to players (rdp = low supply, fb busts =no pvp or move pvp, ninja spawn caps = endless defense) in the low pop game whilst trying to modify and rebuild both the game, the mechanics and the allure for a  much larger player population where those same mini-games/roles become just that - another choice or option for any player to choose to contribute

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.