Feedback - Infantry Fighting Position

[GOPHUR]

This object was updated again for 1.32.0.11.

IFP Timeout is 5 minutes.

====

Please use this thread for feedback on the new Infantry Fighting Position that can be placed by any infantry except sappers and mission leaders.

====

Player Placed Objects:

We've added a new type of Server Tracked Object to this release, the Player Placed Object (PPO). These objects are only the first in a series of objects we hope to allow players to use to impact the battle they are in by affecting the world around them.

• Infantry players may now place certain objects in the world
  
• Sappers can place a gun emplacement
  
• All other infantry/paratroopers can place an infantry fighting position
  
• These objects cannot be destroyed
  
• Infantry units have a new entrenching or build tool
  
• When using this tool you will have visible feedback if you can place an object
  
• Infantry go to kneeling while placing the object
  
• There is a build timer to place the object
  
• There is a cool down timer on the entrenchment tool once it has been used before it can be used again
  
• These can be placed online or offline
  
• There is a limit on how many can be placed in an area by each side *
  
• There are no map icons because these objects are not part of strat
  
• There is a buffer around each object so that they may not be placed too close together or too close to other objects
  
• These objects cannot be placed on cobblestones or airfield or roads etc.
  
• These objects cannot be placed if another player is intersecting their placement position
  

Known Issues:

• luger animations wonky
  
• the quantity limit is not working
  

Edited October 7, 2010 by GOPHUR

[GOPHUR]

The new object is in. Please tell us what you think. This is a release candidate build.

[gtanner]

Like this new larger model but I'd suggest removing those centre sandbags as they make the avatar jump abit into the air when moving forward prone, might be quite frustrating to die in that situation.

[tater]

New object—like the first IFP—also floats in air when deployed near the "door" to the existing ATG emplacements on the map.

Love the change from girder to E-tool! Way better (now let me use the e-tool instead of knife to clock someone )

General observations:

I think the sandbags need to go on both IFPs. Mix the grass with DIRT, too, they are hastily constructed, they should not look like they are old enough to have a putting green on them. Make them look DUG. Note that they can have grass on the "front"—assume that the guy cut out some turf to camouflage the front. Make the inside dirt, though.

I know these are WIP, but I think the SMG should eventually place an URBAN IFP designed to blend into the current RUBBLE (can only be placed on a city tile, perhaps).

The new IFP has no firing slit, and makes more sense for maybe a mortar, but why have the open back? I think at least one (mortarman's IFP?) should be 360 degrees.

As an OT aside, might be cool to make a huge crater PPO that gets applied by really large bombs... (no time out on them, but allow a sapper to "repair" them to make them go away) (crating airfields to deny them...).

[petie]

When i am mission leader i cannot build IFP, only FRU is, this intended.

[gtanner]

When i am mission leader i cannot build IFP' date=' only FRU is, this intended.[/quote']

Yes it is intended.

[tater]

The new IFP REPLACES the former one. This is a terrible development, the first one actually worked. This one has no firing slit, and is therefore entirely useless.

The first one was a game-changer, all of a sudden LMGs were properly dangerous and needed to be flanked. This is no different than any berm already in game. it adds nothing at all.

I assumed the "new" version was for specific inf types to add variability so tested different units. Change readme to say: "Added new, less useful IFP to replace the formerly, useful one." (current readme say "ADDED a new IFP" which suggests it is ADDED to the list of PPOs, it really needs to say "REPLACED IFP with new model.")

If we can have only one, put the first one back, this one stinks on ice. (trying to remember the mel brooks line )

Still floats in mid air. 100% reproducible, can be done at will. Place IFP (either) near door of ATG emplacement, or try various spots on berms. Can do it almost anywhere with a slope if you try.

Dump the sandbags. Add some dirt to the texture if you want it less perfectly camoed. Sandbags make no sense for a field-dug emplacement.

Also, the old IFP, even with the clipping produced REALISTIC OUTCOMES.

It's no like the inf clipped entirely into it. They became LESS vulnerable but not INvulnerable. A nade in the pit would still take them out. heck, the clipping might be why they are so great. We did some testing on the old one (combat) and they actually needed to be flanked. Guess what, that's realistic, and the proper benchmark. If an emplaced LMG doesn't usually need to be flanked to be taken out, whatever the new IFP design is IS WRONG.

The old one is better, even WITH the clipping.

Edited October 6, 2010 by tater

[megatron]

This IFP does not seem to provide much (if any) cover. Can we put some better flank cover and perhaps a bit of concealment?

[rubbish]

Dislike the new position, much prefer the old one.

Also dislike the random sandbags

[wesreidau]

Disliked the sandbags, but the old model was far better than the new one. It was more practical, more concealed, more believable, and more effective. The new IFP almost seems like its meant for mortars and ATG's more than riflemen. Please revert models or return to the old form factor of two walls on the shoulder and an opening to the front.

If you want sandbags just line the inner wall of the old one with sandbags. That might help the clipping problems some were having by making an uncrawlable near-vertical surface. Otherwise please, please, please revert to the old 'hasty position'. It was right out of the field manuals!

[elegance]

IFP times out even if permanently occupied!

Also the sandbags need to go. And as already stated: This is just a frikkin useless berm.

Update: From 1st person view you have your view blocked when lying in the ifp deployed and bullets stopped but from 3rd person view you are clipped in and shooting through ifp.

Edited October 6, 2010 by elegance

[matt6767]

I dislike the new ifp, it removed quite a few advantages for infantry and now its friggen huge.

Why was it replaced anyway? Did inf clip too much into the old one that it couldnt be fixed?

[Tigger6]

When shooting out of the side of the IFP, like:

/--------------\

|X X|

by one of the Xes, one can completely clip in 3rd person and not be visible, while having full view of the target. No go in this form.

[falke88]

NO

I don't like the new one...it adds nothing - as my axis mate said before - to the game.

The old one was way better - now LMGs are no uncovered targets anymore - that would add a LOT more oportunitys for LMG and the other guns, too.

Please CRS - stay with the old one - please !!

[matt6767]

When shooting out of the side of the IFP, like:

/--------------\

|X X|

by one of the Xes, one can completely clip in 3rd person and not be visible, while having full view of the target. No go in this form.

Ya thats understandable but maybe they can design some sort of ifp that is still like a foxhole and not a ppo berm which it is now.

[dweeb]

The steepness of the slope seems to create some odd issues with where troops are placed on it. example:

The scenario:

The view from the soldier in the IFP:

And the view from the guy standing with binocs:

There is only a narrow area you can pull this off. Any higher and the guys helmet at least would be showing over the top of the berm. I realize that this is sortof an issue with the berms in general (I assume this is a side effect of when the prone eye point was raised a bit so you didn't have grass in your eyes) but it's pretty tough to intentionally pull this off with the berms since they are so uneven etc. With this I think its a bit more of an issue since people would quickly figure out where the sweet spot is on these.

[branko]

The clipping problem is not really related to PPOs (although the specific example above is not cool and might be?)

The clipping problem seems to be a result of the difference in eye-height bewteen 1st and 3rd person views.

While I can see that people will love being invunerable from "the front" I don't think it's too good to keep extended the uses this can be put to. With PPOs you can take a piece of ground with you and know that - from the front - you can kill while not being killed.

We have enough issues with this type of thing already.

The RL requirement to flank an LMG was because of fear of death - not because they were genuinely invunerable ... to snipers etc).

Not going to p1ss & m0an too much ... but I don't like the way these Personal-Shield-Generators are going to be used.

[snailtrail]

The current IFP is strange for infantry when crawling on it as it pops you up in the air. I didn't like the previous IFP as there was little cover with the large fire hole on the front. Although, the latest IFP works well with ATG's and would be great if it was just a little wider. Too bad ATG's can't build their own fighting position.

[suggs]

we need to make new IFPs these 1s dont look realistic, they look fuggly! we need the old ones back just a bit bigger, so that we can actually take cover in them

[GOPHUR]

The clipping problem is not really related to PPOs (although the specific example above is not cool and might be?)

The clipping problem seems to be a result of the difference in eye-height bewteen 1st and 3rd person views.

While I can see that people will love being invunerable from "the front" I don't think it's too good to keep extended the uses this can be put to. With PPOs you can take a piece of ground with you and know that - from the front - you can kill while not being killed.

We have enough issues with this type of thing already.

The RL requirement to flank an LMG was because of fear of death - not because they were genuinely invunerable ... to snipers etc).

Not going to p1ss & m0an too much ... but I don't like the way these Personal-Shield-Generators are going to be used.

Yeah it's those shallow slopes. The eye height adjust is there to compensate for when you're hanging over a berm in third person but can't see over it in first. I think I'll reduce that a bit for next patch.

[GOPHUR]

Updated for .11

[snailtrail]

Updated for .11

There is a lack of cover with the large firing notch in the front. Your head sticks up above the notch and you can't move to the side much or you'll go up the sides of the pile of dirt. If the bottom of the firing notch was about 4 inches taller you could take cover from tank fire and when firing only your eyes and top of your head would be exposed rather than your whole head.

[matt6767]

IFP texture is funky.

Depending on where you stand you go from this

to this

Edited October 8, 2010 by Matt6767

[makrel]

IFP texture is funky.

Depending on where you stand you go from this

to this

Tested - but I am not seing this. Textures look good to me.

[snailtrail]

I love how we can now build IFP's closer to another IFP and the GE. It allows for some creativity and people can now close the back on them for added protection.