• 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!
delems

city cp

20 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.

1 person likes this

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
On 9/3/2019 at 8:13 PM, nc0gnet0 said:

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.

I speak as a TZ3 [player as well. 7 years and it's really the only game I know. And speaking from that perspective, I don't ever remember being part of a good "even" battle in TZ3... Not once. And I'm aware of the 4-6 attackers paradigm. It's the thing that hurts our defensive efforts...when you have 7-8 people and 4 of them insist of trying attacks that they can't POSSIBLY succeed at, and then get upset with the rest of us for being on the defense, it does no one any good, and will certainly NEVER help the Allied PB grow.

Your focus is on the attack. OK. Unfortunately an incredibly large number of people seem to believe that if a player isn't attacking, he's playing the game wrong. A great idea...if that didn't mean that all we would have would be both sides attacking empty towns. I don't see that growing the game in any way.

If you want a game you have to have defenders as well. Those defenders need to have a chance to succeed. Warping and spawn depots make those defenses at LEAST 50% less effective once an attacker has a spawn depot. Everybody starts freaking out screaming "They have the Spawn| instead of merely being able to hold what they still have and then trying to recap slowly...The Spawn suddenly expands the enemy inside the town... it's no longer effective to have a guard in a CP who can call for help. Now it's a CPs being flooded and the defenders dying over and over again trying to retake them. The attackers now have the advantage, because they can attack from inside AND outside the town. And instead of defenders taking the time to run defensive FMSs from supporting towns... they rely on linking Depots for supply... and the new program doesn't let them just recap the town.. People scream at anyone who tries to go after the bunker... The attackers know this, and can basically leave the bunker empty until or unless the defenders get all the CPs again.

None of this is what I consider believable or good gameplay. People talk about offsides... people talk about perimeters... people talk about fronts... None of these are really possible as long as warping and link spawning are in the game. Instead of Spawn depots. attackers should have to take a piece of the town, and set up an Urban MSP. The Urban MSP should have it's range changed to like 10 meters, so it can be placed almost anywhere in a town.  A town should not fall in 15 minutes...It simply should not. Yet it happens regularly, partly because people don't think defending matters.

As far as starting in different tiers... Each time you change the tier,,, you take stuff away from players. Let's say I were a French tanker, for instance,,, who loved playing French tanks, and stayed around in later Tiers to help out after I had a lot of fun in the early ones... Now the game starts in late Tiers.. What incentive do I have to play in a campaign when all the gear I enjoy playing is unavailable? Why shouldn't I go play something else that I WILL enjoy until the next campaign? At least when we start early and go late, everyone gets to play what they like. It may be a non-starter for you... but the game is a whole lot bigger than you or me...It has to take the entire PB into account every time something is changed or modified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link depot spawning is no more Star Trek or Doctor Who than MSPs---heck, at least they tend to be on the same side of town as the town they link to.

MSPs and linked facilities should represent the effective movement of the front.

I agree, however that the City CP should be meaningful (and I like the idea @Quincannon suggested of using that tall building, or indeed any alternate building for it!). Honestly, maybe the City CP is a place to innovate with novel CP concepts, just to see how they work. A parklike space (there's that building in one of the triangle blocks that has a little fenced park/yard and a stoop that could work), dunno, I like the idea of some alternate CPs, and City might be a great place to innovate there.

How about something like this (poorly thought out, spitballing):

1. All MSPs have on-sides rules. The rule has to do with distance from the spawn point of the unit deploying the MSP to the center of the target town. MSP can only be deployed at that distance minus some distance X around enemy facilities (a few hundred m, but it is facility dependent, so it might be 400m for a Depot, but 200m for a factory or farm or something).

2. City radio is only hot after a linked facility is capped.

3. The City CP has an exclusion zone of 1km (some larger number) for MSPs. Typically this might mean that FMS can't be placed as close as you could place them otherwise.

 

So the result is that if you cap the city (which requires the Depot usually closest to the FB you are attacking from), your MSP range can get substantially closer to town. Holding the city keeps MSPs at a little greater distance. Note that all the numbers I used are not thought out, need to look at a map, and really tweak it so that the City is useful, but not necessarily required (offering choice in how people attack or defend).

The original idea---which could be seen as ceasing to record damage on an FB if the linked CP and the City are held---makes sense to me, holding the linked CP means the front has moved up right into the outskirts of town, and holding the City is an abstraction of a slightly more secure position (particularly if you can't start capping it until the linked CP falls).

Share this post


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

Link depot spawning is no more Star Trek or Doctor Who than MSPs---heck, at least they tend to be on the same side of town as the town they link to.

Teleporting INTO and behind a defender's lines, making it almost impossible to defend is in my opinion, about as Star Trek teleporter as you can get. Sprry, you will never be able to change my mind on this.

Spawn CPs are a nightmare. I usually do my best to defend, but it's not uncommon for me to feel like giving up the moment  we lose a Spawn. Sometimes I log because of that alone. I hate making a completely futile effort, and IMO, once an enemy has one or two spawns inside my town...everything else is just waiting for the inevitable. Sure, part of it is that I'm incapable of recapping a Spawn depot... but unless numbers are relatively even, something I have yet to experience... loss of the Spawn CP is the death knell for defenders. There's no more interdiction. No searching for FMss outside the perimeter... no setting up a spot to catch enemy trying to get into the town... Just endless spawning and running into the spawn and dying while the attackers waltz around to all the other CPs and suck them up like Jello.

 

11 hours ago, tater said:

The City CP has an exclusion zone of 1km (some larger number) for MSPs. Typically this might mean that FMS can't be placed as close as you could place them otherwise.

No thank you. It's hard enough to defend... having the attackers take the City CP and then having to run out of town a Km to set a DFMS is insane.

 

11 hours ago, tater said:

The original idea---which could be seen as ceasing to record damage on an FB if the linked CP and the City are held---makes sense to me, holding the linked CP means the front has moved up right into the outskirts of town, and holding the City is an abstraction of a slightly more secure position (particularly if you can't start capping it until the linked CP falls).

This would guarantee that the attackers never have to worry about their flanks, while that's all that the defenders DO. It's a mechanic that would pretty much guarantee the success of any attack, unless the attacker was severely underpopped. Attackers don't need any more advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 9:37 AM, Quincannon said:

I speak as a TZ3 [player as well. 7 years and it's really the only game I know. And speaking from that perspective, I don't ever remember being part of a good "even" battle in TZ3... Not once. And I'm aware of the 4-6 attackers paradigm. It's the thing that hurts our defensive efforts...when you have 7-8 people and 4 of them insist of trying attacks that they can't POSSIBLY succeed at, and then get upset with the rest of us for being on the defense, it does no one any good, and will certainly NEVER help the Allied PB grow.

Your focus is on the attack. OK. Unfortunately an incredibly large number of people seem to believe that if a player isn't attacking, he's playing the game wrong. A great idea...if that didn't mean that all we would have would be both sides attacking empty towns. I don't see that growing the game in any way.

If you want a game you have to have defenders as well. Those defenders need to have a chance to succeed. Warping and spawn depots make those defenses at LEAST 50% less effective once an attacker has a spawn depot. Everybody starts freaking out screaming "They have the Spawn| instead of merely being able to hold what they still have and then trying to recap slowly...The Spawn suddenly expands the enemy inside the town... it's no longer effective to have a guard in a CP who can call for help. Now it's a CPs being flooded and the defenders dying over and over again trying to retake them. The attackers now have the advantage, because they can attack from inside AND outside the town. And instead of defenders taking the time to run defensive FMSs from supporting towns... they rely on linking Depots for supply... and the new program doesn't let them just recap the town.. People scream at anyone who tries to go after the bunker... The attackers know this, and can basically leave the bunker empty until or unless the defenders get all the CPs again.

None of this is what I consider believable or good gameplay. People talk about offsides... people talk about perimeters... people talk about fronts... None of these are really possible as long as warping and link spawning are in the game. Instead of Spawn depots. attackers should have to take a piece of the town, and set up an Urban MSP. The Urban MSP should have it's range changed to like 10 meters, so it can be placed almost anywhere in a town.  A town should not fall in 15 minutes...It simply should not. Yet it happens regularly, partly because people don't think defending matters.

As far as starting in different tiers... Each time you change the tier,,, you take stuff away from players. Let's say I were a French tanker, for instance,,, who loved playing French tanks, and stayed around in later Tiers to help out after I had a lot of fun in the early ones... Now the game starts in late Tiers.. What incentive do I have to play in a campaign when all the gear I enjoy playing is unavailable? Why shouldn't I go play something else that I WILL enjoy until the next campaign? At least when we start early and go late, everyone gets to play what they like. It may be a non-starter for you... but the game is a whole lot bigger than you or me...It has to take the entire PB into account every time something is changed or modified.

You seem to be of the mind that I am primarily a player that prefers to play offense, but nothing can be further from the truth. 

The conundrum of having a group of players that insist on being on the offensive, even though game conditions (underpop) tells anyone with a semblance of intelligence that everyone should be on the defensive, I understand. But I also place a SMALL PART of the blame on HC for not encouraging more effective use of this portion of the player base. Primarily, convincing them if they insist on being on the attack, rather than attempt to take a town in which we all know they have zero chance of success, they should be out taking down enemy front bases. At least then their actions are not a complete waste of time and resources. To help with this problem, CRS should not mandate that each side have one active town AO, rather let HC set an active AO (s) one a particular FB (or better yet set of FB's).  

Long story short, as long as CRS tries to make everyone happy, no one will be. 

Edited by nc0gnet0
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

city cps should be a bar caffe with AI civilians and music. and girls. and booze.

Image result for ww2 french cafe

Image result for ww2 french cafe

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

city cps should be a bar caffe with AI civilians and music. and girls. and booze.

Image result for ww2 french cafe

Image result for ww2 french cafe

 

1 croissant to go plz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.