XOOM

Mission Leader Tools

71 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, tater said:

Yeah, I'm open to different points for different things. I was actually putting max points for CP-related stuff, as that;s the only play that is required by the game. Kills would in fact be lower than a cap or guarding a CP. The fastest way to rank up? Follow your ML's marks, and cap or guard the CP he says to cap/guard. Kills? Sure, a bonus.

More like 25 for a capture, 10 for guarding, 5 for a kill, -100 for death.

I clear CPs we already own a lot. Usually with a rifle. Better to waste a rifle on this, than waste a SMG---though the latter is perhaps less likely to be wasted, depends on clearing a CP of just inf inside, inf with a cutter, or inf with armor cutting, etc).

Sorry for these long posts, I'm spitballing...

So make a rank system as above. But better rank gives the ML more tools/abilities/whatever. Not new gear. Maybe M/Sgt can make a FRU? (would prefer with on-sides rules, very limited spawn list, etc). Points gain rank, and rank gets busted in a less draconian way. Think of some rank benis that are not "stuff."

The same points can ALSO be used to buy spawned gear, though. Minimum points is always "1." If a rifle or truck costs 1 point, a SMG costs 5, LMG costs 10, engie costs 15, sniper costs 25, whatever. A tank might cost 50, a great tank might cost 150. ATGs? 10 for a crappy one, and up. You lose rank points to select weapons, but you gain 25 for a cap, 10 for guarding, 10 for leaving the depot, etc. You also get banged down (these are the same rank points) for death/MIA. Now players can spawn everything like now, but they THINK before paying for the units, and sometimes can only spawn a rifle. Spawning at a camped depot? Start with a rifle, right? need to clear the CP? Totally worth the SMG, as killing just 1 guy buys the SMG, clearing it earns it back in spades.

Take the -100 death, when the math is done matters... min rank points is always 1. So the FIRST thing the game does on despawn is subtracts 100. Say you have 25 points, and get killed. 25 - 100 = 1 in this case (doesn't go neg, stops at 1!). During that spawn you left the Depot, +10, you went to the CP the ML asked you to, +10, you killed a guy, +5, and helped recap it, +25. So while you died, you actually accomplished something. You accomplished 50 points of rank gain. Your points are now 51, even though you started with 25, and got killed. If you spawned a SMG with your 51 pts, and exit the Depot, you'd be at 56 pts (51-5+10). If you got killed outside you'd be down to 11 pts. If you got killed in the Depot, you're back to 1. I'm liking this better, since people can choose what to spawn, regardless of rank, they just need some points. You can never exceed Pvt and spawn anything.

I think we covered our points, hopefully Xoom and the gang take a peek. Thx for the brainstorm S! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will there be a on off switch for the ingame waypoints some guys are concerned that the graphic might block vis on potential threats/targets?

Share this post


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

Will there be a on off switch for the ingame waypoints some guys are concerned that the graphic might block vis on potential threats/targets?

There currently is a option in preferences to toggle waypoints on/off.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, OLDZEKE said:

There currently is a option in preferences to toggle waypoints on/off.

 

Ok i will let the grumps(canuk) know the wps wont get in the way of their “suppressing”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tools MLs needed are:
 

Disable MS, enable MS

Disable mission spawning, enable mission spawning

 

That would really help in town setups, FBs and MS or spawn camping.

 

Edited by delems
4 people like this

Share this post


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

The tools MLs needed are:
 

Disable MS, enable MS

Disable mission spawning, enable mission spawning

 

That would really help in town setups, FBs and MS or spawn camping.

 

Definitely agree here. 

 

What about directional way points for the map only. Like red and blue arrows to help mission leaders orient players in a specific direction or what direction the enemy is currently coming from/traveling to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if you could see the mission marks, spawn, etc, when you join the mission, before you spawn.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about adding the tags of players on the map and, by right-clicking it, to be able to send direct private pre-set messages (automatically translated in their UI language). The player can then fast reply with .r

Proof of concept:

0bc0908769c2a9112766d19442a1d46a.png

Also, the legend could allow to see the squad and weapon type as well:

94af9b1086a353b2703e06603743daa1.png 5ce716e88b9b77a58576f40482e37be8.png

2 people like this

Share this post


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

What about adding the tags of players on the map and, by right-clicking it, to be able to send direct private pre-set messages (automatically translated in their UI language). The player can then fast reply with .r

Proof of concept:

0bc0908769c2a9112766d19442a1d46a.png

Also, the legend could allow to see the squad and weapon type as well:

94af9b1086a353b2703e06603743daa1.png 5ce716e88b9b77a58576f40482e37be8.png

This is what we can use and it is not rocket siens. Excellent suggestion 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the different radius features/constraints could be shown on map?

Example for the FMS, showing no-deployment areas for the enemy:

9ed81cd0e55c58568bad7e74c000ce00.png

Other drawings could be the RTB despawn range, the EWS ranges, the local chat ranges (whisper and yell incl.), etc.

This could further help a Mission Leader identify the best spots to put their waypoints.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

What if the different radius features/constraints could be shown on map?

Example for the FMS, showing no-deployment areas for the enemy:

9ed81cd0e55c58568bad7e74c000ce00.png

Other drawings could be the RTB despawn range, the EWS ranges, the local chat ranges (whisper and yell incl.), etc.

This could further help a Mission Leader identify the best spots to put their waypoints.

Thas combined white your otter suggestion will be perfect so we can get along and make thing happen and not just talking.

Lets get it implement and not all that this, and this and so on. Life goes on what ever you like or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crippling and limiting FMS zones of deployment is a no-sense against dynamic map 2.0 and lost of energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Crippling and limiting FMS zones of deployment is a no-sense against dynamic map 2.0 and lost of energy.

They are just showing 'no MS' range from facilities, that already exists.

 

You might be thinking of the not allowing MS behind enemy lines proposal, which I endorse.

Say allies attack  out of Verv to Eupen, no way they should be able to set a MS NE of Eupen for example. (with current towns)

 

Regarding these suggestions, as long as they are a 'click away', from turning on or off; not always on.

I'd still really like to see country borders on the map (or overlay) and most badly, topo chart.

 

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, matamor said:

Crippling and limiting FMS zones of deployment is a no-sense against dynamic map 2.0 and lost of energy.

FMS anywhere "on sides" makes total sense, it's where you have massed your troops for attack/defense (I'd like to see them persistent, as well, so you could set up an attack or defense ahead of time, and shown on the mission UI before spawning). Off-sides, MSPs are teleporters, and we might as well have phasers for weapons.

Trucks driving to the rear, then disgorging troops? I'm totally fine with that---which is sort of what an FMS "behind the lines" feels like, right? OK, that's reasonable, but fix a few things first:

1. Fix off road behavior of vehicles. I drive off road in an area (New Mexico) where it's pretty easy to do this. I drive off road with far more difficulty than any ww2ol vehicle, and at a tiny fraction of the speed they all manage, and we don't even have trees to speak of. The average offroad speed should be MAYBE as fast as walking for a wheeled vehicle. I'm almost willing to stop there, slow offroad speed to infantry walking speed, and place FMS whereever (since you'd have to control the route to survive long enough to place it).

2. Ideally such an FMS would have the number of men that the one truck could carry, no more. 10-15 guys? Want 100? Bring 10 trucks (at walking speed if offroad).

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the development is going is great and many ideas are really good to.

We just need to stay focus and as Delems say allowing MS behind enemy lines proposal, which I endorse and that will be great for the you can begin to make strategies and tactical moves.

To see country borders on the map will be nice to for sure

Share this post


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

You might be thinking of the not allowing MS behind enemy lines proposal, which I endorse.

Say allies attack  out of Verv to Eupen, no way they should be able to set a MS NE of Eupen for example. (with current towns)

This idea is to pleased few turtles out. To react.

I see no bonus value added to this. Breaking dynamics.

That will just add frustration by limiting people that are actually create action on map : rolling trucks, create FMS and have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, matamor said:

This idea is to pleased few turtles out. To react.

I see no bonus value added to this. Breaking dynamics.

That will just add frustration by limiting people that are actually create action on map : rolling trucks, create FMS and have fun.

It has nothing to do with "turtles," it has to do with some sense of where the enemy is, and should be. I would argue that it's opposed by... what's a good name like turtles... NINJAS. It's opposed by ninjas who want to "attack" empty buildings (by crouching in them) to have fun (because that's fun, apparently).

I'd rather have the capture timers move far, far faster with multiple peeps in there, but require that the CP be clr first, and have on-sdes rules so that more likely than not you have to FIGHT to get to the CP in the first place. You fight to get to the CP, the defenders need to keep you out. Less fighting IN the CPs, more to keep people out in the first place. I'd be fine with trying some CPs that are not buildings, actually. Open ground.

That's the difference, some of us want to have to ATTACK to capture most facilities, vs the people who want to occupy them before the enemy appears.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an idea, a poor one and I can predict it right now that will be an unpopular one if one day its implemented.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of limiting msp deployment areas, what if spawnables had to be captured before being able to capture the other flags? 

Hence that would also focus battles on predicted sides of towns, letting defenders setup their defense and forcing attackers to make a first combined arms rush.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not unusual to hear the same complaint about behind the lines insta-armies in other games, as well. Sure, if we actually could have manned positions along a front line, the current mechanics would be fine, but...

+ 1 for Zebbeee's idea, though. Really like that one. Would go a long way to alleviate the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defenders still have it too easy right now Zebbee outside no pop where the map moves more within these hours VS any other tz... to name a few turtle incentives  : ews, INTEL msgs, white skulls... add to that people with 2nd and 3rd account sitting in CP to cover them. Map is large enough to see towns falling more during high pop.

 

Share this post


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

Defenders still have it too easy right now Zebbee outside no pop where the map moves more within these hours VS any other tz... to name a few turtle incentives  : ews, INTEL msgs, white skulls... add to that people with 2nd and 3rd account sitting in CP to cover them. Map is large enough to see towns falling more during high pop.

 

Imho defenders indeed have it more easy (when sides are balanced). One-sided MSPs would make it even harder, or even almost impossible to sustain a town contest, except if we want to go for total attrition warfare instead of territory control.

Such a rule would therefore need to be balanced with other changes, and could be limited to proximity AOs if we go for a hybrid system

Forcing the behaviour resulting from a fully defended frontline is impossible without AI, but instead we can simulate commanders always pushing towards the best tactical target which indeed has stronger defenses already setup.

anyway, and back to topic, a clearly defined common target would give more sense to waypoints. right now it’s cat&mouse within a 360 degrees arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.