delems

city cp

12 posts in this topic

Ok, couple ideas here.

 

1) if attacker gets enemy CITY CP or their own spawn link CP - then their FB becomes non destroyable.

2) CPs can go hot in town, but can't actually capture until full EWS - no more moles.

 

The point of these is to remove the tedious and boring guarding somewhat.

 

Note: CITY CP would mean all your FBs to town are safe, link CP would just mean that 1 FB is safe.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both suggestions benefit the overpop side and hamstring underpop one.

Edited by Randazzo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't everything hamstring the under pop side?

What is the point to always bringing up that argument?

 

Share this post


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

Doesn't everything hamstring the under pop side?

What is the point to always bringing up that argument?

 

I'm not even sure if you're serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like this idea.

I'd add that without an AO, the AI should be 360 degrees, and indestructible.

I'm sick of spawning in to find that light EWS (how many inf keep the EWS light, exactly?) is in place, and they have run in (at 45 degrees, as we all do), then blow every AI. You try to start a defense, but the enemy are already inside your supposed territory, and our only persistent defense (the stupid AI) let them walk up---alone in a town supposedly filled with hundrred of troops---and kill them.

This would cripple the underpop side on attack, but face it, any grossly underpop side can't really attack. They can do a sneaky cap, and hope that the overpop side doesn't just zerg in... it's crappy play, better to fix the game some other way.

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

City cp should have purpose imo

It has had a perfect purpose ever since the day  long ago when capping it used to blow the AI in a town. 

Now, its purpose is to be the centre of 'capping city cp is for noobs' jokes. What other cp can claim that high honour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I a opposed to Delems' suggestion (especially indestructable FBs), he like many have a point.

The City SHOULD have a purpose. It should also not just be another standard CP building. I would suggest the tall 3 story city building or a new 2 story one. Honestly, I would personally like to see the tall building as the City CP in cities and bigger towns, and see the current bunker building repurposed as the city CP for smaller towns. The we could start using the redesigned bunkers in all the ABs. Make them indestructible and give them radios like bunkers.

 I would suggest making it so that the City must be held by an attacker or defender before Link spawns can activate. That would turn the capture of a town into three stages:

1. Cap the Outer CPs
2. Cap the City and hold it
3. Cap the Bunker

Now I know it would involve more, but it's a simple plan, and it turns an open fight into a more staged one... even if a small force can't hold all the perimeter CPs, they can focus on the city, and then fall back to the Bunker. Guarding becomes more focused. If you don't own the bunker, you need to own the city if you want to use linked depot supply. This makes sense, because the City hall was often the hub for trains and roads leading into cities, and communications between cities were often put in such buildings.

Another point is that the City doesn't have a spawn. Everyone has to go there to defend it. You can't just run out of a spawn and run into it. Both sides would have an equal chance at trying to capture and hold it; and it would become a central focus of town and city battles.

S!S!S!

Share this post


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

While I a opposed to Delems' suggestion (especially indestructable FBs), he like many have a point.

The City SHOULD have a purpose. It should also not just be another standard CP building. I would suggest the tall 3 story city building or a new 2 story one. Honestly, I would personally like to see the tall building as the City CP in cities and bigger towns, and see the current bunker building repurposed as the city CP for smaller towns. The we could start using the redesigned bunkers in all the ABs. Make them indestructible and give them radios like bunkers.

 I would suggest making it so that the City must be held by an attacker or defender before Link spawns can activate. That would turn the capture of a town into three stages:

1. Cap the Outer CPs
2. Cap the City and hold it
3. Cap the Bunker

Now I know it would involve more, but it's a simple plan, and it turns an open fight into a more staged one... even if a small force can't hold all the perimeter CPs, they can focus on the city, and then fall back to the Bunker. Guarding becomes more focused. If you don't own the bunker, you need to own the city if you want to use linked depot supply. This makes sense, because the City hall was often the hub for trains and roads leading into cities, and communications between cities were often put in such buildings.

Another point is that the City doesn't have a spawn. Everyone has to go there to defend it. You can't just run out of a spawn and run into it. Both sides would have an equal chance at trying to capture and hold it; and it would become a central focus of town and city battles.

S!S!S!

Hate this idea. So if a town has three spawnable depots to the attacker, all the defenders have to do is lib the city cap and the attack is stopped dead in it's tracks? 

Do you want to see maps/campaigns last 3 years?

Maybe if the spawn depots remain active even after the city cap is libbed, maybe. But I think what your asking requires too much coding tbh. We have to be realistic here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, delems said:

Ok, couple ideas here.

 

1) if attacker gets enemy CITY CP or their own spawn link CP - then their FB becomes non destroyable.

2) CPs can go hot in town, but can't actually capture until full EWS - no more moles.

 

The point of these is to remove the tedious and boring guarding somewhat.

 

Note: CITY CP would mean all your FBs to town are safe, link CP would just mean that 1 FB is safe.

 

I like the idea of the city cap meaning something, not sure if I like the idea of it meaning the FB becomes indestructible. I think there are better ways to give the city cap more value, preferably on the supply side of the defender. Or maybe a mandatory 5 second spawn delay added to the spawn timers of the defending town. 

I also like your idea of the stopping the mole attacks, but not sure of the repercussions it might have on tz3, when either side might struggle to get a full EWS. How many peeps does it take anyways? I have seen a lot of battles in TZ3 where the ews teeters between single and double EWS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nc0gnet0 said:

Hate this idea. So if a town has three spawnable depots to the attacker, all the defenders have to do is lib the city cap and the attack is stopped dead in it's tracks? 

Do you want to see maps/campaigns last 3 years?

Maybe if the spawn depots remain active even after the city cap is libbed, maybe. But I think what your asking requires too much coding tbh. We have to be realistic here. 

First. Link spawns are one of the most unrealistic parts of the game. Period. Star Trek spawning inside a town you don't even own is crazy. To me it's one of the only things I actually hate about the game. But I was looking at a reason for the city to be useful.

And I have no idea why you feel that losing depots stops an attack in its tracks. Attackers have to have FMSs up to attack in the first place. They don't lose those FMSs if they lose the Spawns now, so why would they lose them based on what I suggested? The best way to have that handled would be for attackers to have to move in and be able to establish mobile spawns to spawn inside a town, the way they do in the large cities.

And recently, entire Campaigns have been ending before we ever hit Tier 4, so I personally would like to see them last longer. I'm actually tired of seeing a town fall in a half hour or less and the next town have full EWS a mere 15 minutes after that.

People keep talking about how boring it is for defenders to guard a CP... Well honestly, guarding CPs should be even more crucial to attackers. My thought here is just what I suggested. An attacker should have to take and hold a CP... then get the City CP, and then they can spawn. The defenders should have central points to defend. My idea creates that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2019 at 0:55 PM, Quincannon said:

First. Link spawns are one of the most unrealistic parts of the game. Period. Star Trek spawning inside a town you don't even own is crazy. To me it's one of the only things I actually hate about the game. But I was looking at a reason for the city to be useful.

And I have no idea why you feel that losing depots stops an attack in its tracks. Attackers have to have FMSs up to attack in the first place. They don't lose those FMSs if they lose the Spawns now, so why would they lose them based on what I suggested? The best way to have that handled would be for attackers to have to move in and be able to establish mobile spawns to spawn inside a town, the way they do in the large cities.

And recently, entire Campaigns have been ending before we ever hit Tier 4, so I personally would like to see them last longer. I'm actually tired of seeing a town fall in a half hour or less and the next town have full EWS a mere 15 minutes after that.

People keep talking about how boring it is for defenders to guard a CP... Well honestly, guarding CPs should be even more crucial to attackers. My thought here is just what I suggested. An attacker should have to take and hold a CP... then get the City CP, and then they can spawn. The defenders should have central points to defend. My idea creates that...

How long a map lasts isn't what brings people to the game. Good even battles are. I have seen many an attack stop dead in it's tracks upon losing the spawnable depots. Granted, I am coming from a tz3 perspective, where multiple fms isn't practical when you have a player base of 4-6 people on the attack. What you say is true, if you have 30-50 people logged in per side. But i digress, it isn't 2010 anymore. 

The "would like to see maps longer" so we see later tiers is a non-starter in my book. There is nothing preventing the introduction of the tiers in a quicker fashion, just that CRS chooses not too. 

Any modification to the game in it's current state should focus on increased action in an attempt to increase the player base. Lets not cut off our nose to spite our face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.