The UN killable FRU

[genxs]

One point to mention. Yesterday on beta we had a fun INF fight having setup two FRU's 300m apart behind some hard cover. After various 'dont camp frus' messages we still kept ending up having just that.

The FRU's on beta cannot be shot. One can keep spawning till supply would run out. Some say this would be a very bad thing. But with the supply in mind (the crates represent hundrerds of INF units or at least the flow off) a single soldier would never be able to take out so many units and stop the enemy control there.

Instead pbase responded to a camped FRU as normal. Try to get out and move the FRU. It did not end up in permanent camp situations although it had permanent INF action. I liked that effect. Therefor i suggest ONE intermission with unkillable FRUs, or at least till supply runs down in them.

How about you guys ? Wanna try one like that ?

[vonhavel]

One point to mention. Yesterday on beta we had a fun INF fight having setup two FRU's 300m apart behind some hard cover. After various 'dont camp frus' messages we still kept ending up having just that.

The FRU's on beta cannot be shot. One can keep spawning till supply would run out. Some say this would be a very bad thing. But with the supply in mind (the crates represent hundrerds of INF units or at least the flow off) a single soldier would never be able to take out so many units and stop the enemy control there.

Instead pbase responded to a camped FRU as normal. Try to get out and move the FRU. It did not end up in permanent camp situations although it had permanent INF action. I liked that effect. Therefor i suggest ONE intermission with unkillable FRUs, or at least till supply runs down in them.

How about you guys ? Wanna try one like that ?

The new Daisy-Chain feature is bound to do just that, except it will move the FRU when the enemy is close (shoots it).

[Voodoo1]

Not sure about daisy chain fru's..

[Topd]

Moved to bug reporting

[monsjoex]

I think daisy chain will do just that genxs, but just less campy.

[genxs]

The new Daisy-Chain feature is bound to do just that' date=' except it will move the FRU when the enemy is close (shoots it).[/quote']

Then it wont do just that. One single IE can still kill the FRU then. Its like receiving a hit on your line.. its not like the rest of the INF (in supply) runs back 300m when a few bullets land near.

I think TopD means that the FRUs in beta should drop when hit.

[n1teeye]

Then it wont do just that. One single IE can still kill the FRU then. Its like receiving a hit on your line.. its not like the rest of the INF (in supply) runs back 300m when a few bullets land near.

I think TopD means that the FRUs in beta should drop when hit.

TOPD needs to shoot them , instead of camping them......

[david06]

Honestly the unkillable FRUs seemed like a real boon to testing. There was plenty of constant infantry combat and players stayed logged on; not the usual on-off-on cycle that bores people and makes us waste time on the server running new FRUs.

You guys should do this for all the future betas, or at the very least when you need to focus on infantry testing.

Edited August 7, 2011 by david06

[genxs]

Honestly the unkillable FRUs seemed like a real boon to testing. There was plenty of constant infantry combat and players stayed logged on; not the usual on-off-on cycle that bores people and makes us waste time on the server running new FRUs.

You guys should do this for all the future betas, or at the very least when you need to focus on infantry testing.

Third time on beta that i had good INF fun. Even had some skirmish at 10m lol. These unkillable frus turning the field into plain inf fun. Tanks cant even get control when there is enough bush cover. There always seems to be some INF avail to smoke up when an ET starts camping.

An intermission thingy for sure if not something more permanent

[GOPHUR]

Ticketed.

[GOPHUR]

Honestly the unkillable FRUs seemed like a real boon to testing. There was plenty of constant infantry combat and players stayed logged on; not the usual on-off-on cycle that bores people and makes us waste time on the server running new FRUs.

You guys should do this for all the future betas, or at the very least when you need to focus on infantry testing.

I've always believed that the worst thing in the game is mission hopping and that generally results from 2 things.

1) mission target/origin no longer valid

2) MSP gone

I can't fix #1 until I get groups and #2 will be helped by Daisy Chain FRUs. But do you think harder to destroy FRUs will also help? We've always said that since an FRU takes 1 bullet to kill you really have to be holding the area it is in for it to exist. Should we rethink this?

[ghost]

i think it should take a grenade or better to pop a fru. or a clip or so of lmg.

thats just my opinion tho.

[jwilly]

If you can't readily kill an FRU from your position with the weapons you have, you'll camp it instead. That would not be a gameplay improvement.

But the easier it is to kill an FRU, the more likely a player is to be frustrated by his side having lost its close spawn capability, and jump somewhere else where close spawning is still available.

Daisy Chain FRUs will help.

If you could make it unproductive to camp an FRU by auto-opening the next one back in response to a just-spawned kill close to the forward one, leaving the forward one open but shifting live spawning to the next one back for X time...

Then you could also make an FRU-kill require more destruction-energy.

[genxs]

I've always believed that the worst thing in the game is mission hopping and that generally results from 2 things.

1) mission target/origin no longer valid

2) MSP gone

I can't fix #1 until I get groups and #2 will be helped by Daisy Chain FRUs. But do you think harder to destroy FRUs will also help? We've always said that since an FRU takes 1 bullet to kill you really have to be holding the area it is in for it to exist. Should we rethink this?

Well it seems that the pbase is balancing this problem out themselfs by moving it or fighting their way to a safe perimiter. Just like in RL when a position would be surpressed so much that you die peeking then its time to move back or push out.

I prefer to see our FRU positions like the second line where INF can take a breather and resupply then move back to the frontline to hold or push. A few bullets on your line (even if it kills some soldiers) should not have the hole line fold.

A few bullets hitting your equipment is also hardly a reason to fall back. A bomb right on the FRU would basicly whipe out all infantry near it but a line is never that small that the whole line would be whiped out. And we dont blow up whole lines like in 'Hill 61' hehe. Even the lone kamikazi could not blow up a whole line even if they ran into the command pit.

Say the FRU falls just like a brigade.. if less then 10% supply then fall it back over the daisy chain. And once your camped then its a choice either to keep feeding the axis frenzy, regain security around the FRU or move the FRU.

I also would very much suggest to lower the FRU profile.. two crates high sticking out over anything we have is a tad much. I would surely not stack my ammo boxes up into the air. A lower FRU profile may also allow us to simulate the trench logistics a bit.. like running low through a trench to the frontline wont get you seen. Mortars and bombs could still kill you while crawling or crouchrunnign away from FRUs though.

I definitly had a blast with the unkillable FRU, you also feel like taking less risk and place it pretty much minimal range if the situation allows. Annoying to the enemy ? Perhaps but they also get more targets now in shorter time. Win/Win it seemed to me.

Edited August 11, 2011 by genxs

[genxs]

A FRU represents the infnatry supply and ammunition available to the brigade. I dont see how you could kill it without a small army.

Opening the former FRU to clear the last FRU sounds like a nice idea but if it was nearby (say within 100m to allow quick flanking) then it would render the enemy surpression/camp absolete in notime. Untill the FRU is out of requireed units it could litterly realise the idea of a bigger brigade holding a wider line without actually having the amount of units to do so.

Interesting... continues nearby safe INF spawning unless the ML puts them both in the open field next to each other

If you can't readily kill an FRU from your position with the weapons you have' date=' you'll camp it instead. That would [u']not be a gameplay improvement.

But the easier it is to kill an FRU, the more likely a player is to be frustrated by his side having lost its close spawn capability, and jump somewhere else where close spawning is still available.

Daisy Chain FRUs will help.

If you could make it unproductive to camp an FRU by auto-opening the next one back in response to a just-spawned kill close to the forward one, leaving the forward one open but shifting live spawning to the next one back for X time...

Then you could also make an FRU-kill require more destruction-energy.

[monsjoex]

Problem is: if you make it too hard to kill MSPS the underpopped side won't have a chance to hold the enemy off.

But now attackers have it too hard.

[genxs]

Problem is: if you make it too hard to kill MSPS the underpopped side won't have a chance to hold the enemy off.

But now attackers have it too hard.

Tricky indeed.. using FRU mechanics to even out population is a puzzle by itself.

The underpop side could however push a FRU forward towards the enemy FRU. I cant imagine that both FRUs would spawn more 10 or more INF and they would be able to push to each other to close for fun.

Here is where the flanking comes in.. a haac'd depot FRU perhaps or a flanked one from another town. Perhaps drop 20 paras on the EFRU and surround it to move the own FRU up close enough to sustain the surpression.

Even on beta the single ei's would sometimes be hard to get when the FRU was camped but a bit of marking and comms would allow clearing of the area. With 10 INF i could imagine the players not even want to spawn in that FRU no more and the ML would realise that the FRU is rendered bad untill moved or cleared.

Besides.. spawning in to a camped FRU is much the same as spawning into a 911 situation. Spawn, run, death.. ask for marks... rinch and repeat

[noons]

Problem is: if you make it too hard to kill MSPS the underpopped side won't have a chance to hold the enemy off.

But now attackers have it too hard.

Yes and its always this fine line isn't it. We want good the good battles but we don't want to make it impossible for the underpop side.

I'm hoping that the other fixes for SD will help the underpop team level the playing field.

[GOPHUR]

Yes and its always this fine line isn't it. We want good the good battles but we don't want to make it impossible for the underpop side.

I'm hoping that the other fixes for SD will help the underpop team level the playing field.

Me too and I'm open to ideas. As I told the team "we keep turning the knob up until the under pop side is whining that people are joining their side then we back it off one notch".

[branko]

The issue is how much difference in population there is between low and high pop. You can't build one system that will adequately cope with both if the difference is massive. (Not unless it flexes)

When I play, its usually tz3/4, so I know lowpop.

The problem isn't really how many times I have to shoot a FRU to kill it ... the problem is that the lowpop side can't really afford any more than 1 FRU hunter ... So finding it and getting to it are the first hurdles. I can mitigate that somewhat, by taking an ATR with me (instead of other inf weapon). If I had to shoot it 16 times to take it down I would probably take an LMG (if there were any ... there's always ATRs in supply).

I know other people go with scout-cars for similar reasons.

For example: The Daisy-Chain might be a nightmare for lowpop defenders, because the damn thing will stay somewhere in the vicinity, instead of 2) in your post up the page occuring, GOPHER.

(I know No2 isn't what you want, GOPHER, but if I am lowpop defending, it is what I want).

That's the impossible trade-off, though. If you are attacking, you want a bulletproof FRU, if you're defending you want them made from paper. We're all the same.

I guess - like AOs - you could vary it (increase minimum distance in Daisy Chain hops, for example) according to population. Or do same for number of hits required ... though like I say, don't think that is really the problem. But might be too difficult to find a happy medium that way?

Think of it like this ... If it was just me - no enemy units - hunting a wooden box, the issue would be finding it, not how many bullets it took to kill. The problem is the amount of enemies that stop me finding it and/or getting near enough to kill it (or enough shots off to kill it).

Edited August 24, 2011 by branko

[GOPHUR]

Fantastic post. Thanks for the perspective. I don't have an answer but I'm going to think about it.

[GOPHUR]

When you're playing under pop, how many AOs are on the map for a single side?

What do you perceive the ratio of us to them is?

Besides more players what would help you most make it a fair fight?

Given the above, what would make it so that you would win even as under pop?

[branko]

When you're playing under pop, how many AOs are on the map for a single side?

1 AO per side.

That's how you know low-pop has arrived. Given we have no other easy in-game measure, the number of AOs is what tells us the state of the population at any one point. But not the balance of the sides (it is server-pop based)

What do you perceive the ratio of us to them is?

Perception - A great way to phrase it, GOPHER.

That's based on what I am doing. I can be on a DO, guarding a depot for ten minutes and believe we must be out-numbered 100:1. Then - same DO - I can go FRU hunting or FB take-down - and believe the sides must be about even. Or I can look up to the heavens and note we appear to out-number them 3:1!

I wonder whether you should display (chat command) the % players per side? ... Pilots, sailors, the few people on the 1 AO (rather than DO) that a side has - I see none of those people; so, although I feel like it's 100:1 while I'm hiding in my depot cupboard, there may be no large imbalance server-wide (or even in the town I am in).

Then the issue is one of what individual players want to do ... I may think those 4 pilots up there are wasting their time (and losing us this town), but they may be having the time of their lives ... Are they wrong, or am I?

Perception - A great way to phrase it.

Besides more players what would help you most make it a fair fight?

See above ... This is lowpop, but am I actually on the underpop side? This matters a lot, because if many people are flying, they have a small impact on my game (and me on theirs).

And, the lower the population, the worse an imbalance is for the underpop side.

If a side is actually underpop ...

Given the above, what would make it so that you would win even as under pop?

Health Warning: there is a flame-war just around the corner.

Question: Back to those 4 lads in Spitfires. What is the affect of them losing their dog fight? and, if I am on DO duty, what is the affect of me losing my fight?

You would be reading a novel if I wrote out everything here ... Go read the Barracks (not all of it!), there are probably hundreds of posts in there where we all discuss this issue and how to solve it (no one has, but lots try).

But - in a nutshell - when there are too many necessary jobs to be filled by the players on one side (including jobs many people - like pilots - do not want to do) then the game mechanics do not function properly.

Changes - unless they are fantasy-based - won't help once this situation arises. If SD does not make people switch, then it is unlikely much else will either (again, not unless we get into fantasy).

Most players won't accept it, but - in the end - if you can't mitigate a large imbalance (made worse by lowpop numbers) then you have to accept that one side will roll and the other just has to do its best to slow that roll (cap timers, time to AO, time to AB capture, time to resupply units, time to move brigades etc).

And the overpop side will hate it - but like SD, they still won't switch - If I was going to be brutal: shut off the campaign-server and make lowpop go play RA

OR - a little less brutal - if town capture was locked, what other useful tasks could be found for players in lowpop?

Edit: Made me smile. I present an example: http://forums.battlegroundeurope.com/showthread.php?t=372391 (never mind how each poster phrases their point ...)

Who is right? Is it about fun, or is it about winning? What is winning?

Edited August 25, 2011 by branko

[GOPHUR]

@branko

When you look in the air do you yell at the angels to get their boots on the ground? =] hehe.

We used to show populations on the web page live. I don;t know if it was done well.

We wanted to show side balance at the persona select screen where you have a 60 second wait to join the overpop side. It didn't happen. I don't think it would have made any difference though.

Very few players are altruistic enough to play for the low pop side as opposed to the over pop side. Look at all the hate for spawn delay. Players know its there since they have to wait 60 seconds to play the game. They know why its there is because population imbalance makes for unfair play. And they choose it anyway knowing that the price to pay for playing easy-mode is you'll have to take a time out when the overwhelmed players manage to get a kill on you.

Seriously. They then complain!

That's to be expected of course because their perception isn't that it is unfair for the game but that it is unfair for them. No one who thinks thus is interested in playing for the disadvantaged side to make the game more fair. And honestly they shouldn't be punished for simply choosing to play the game.

The only real answer is to redesign the system so that equal and matched sides are always a requirement for play. That could be instance based matchups or that could be a population gate at the front of the game. Neither of those is likely.

Instead I think we should reward those people who do play for the underprivileged side. I think we should make it easy mode for them instead. That's the only way to get the game fair I think and we'll know we've done it enough when either the underpop side is regularly winning or underpop goes away because the player above begins to realize that playing for the underpop side is easier, switches sides, and underpop goes away.

In either case we've then reached our goal and can turn it back down from 11 to 10.

Is it about winning or fun? That's a good question. I don't pretend to have that answer for everyone but for me, it is about fun. I can say that question defines precisely the two major types of players we have and you can see them discussed above.

Sorry for the hijack. This thread is really about unkillable FRUs and Daisy chains as a possible improvement. Carry on...

[rwkeen]

Given the games history there is always likely to be an issue with any system thats make you have to choose a side to play dependant on the current ingame player balance.

For RA, this isn't a issue as plenty of other games use a system where you can only join the under-pop side to balance the numbers, and as it would be in there from the start I doubt you'd have any complaints.

The problem with the campaign game is actually player affiliation, be that to country, squad or friends. What you're requiring is someone to see their side is over populated & has a spawn delay, and get them to go join the other side. This is a MAJOR issue for several reasons.

1. Players that only ever play one side will never switch, and thus have to either put up with spawn delay or log off. Be default all HC members fall into this group.

2. Player who squad only plays one side per map. NO player is going to leave their friends and go play the other side. Heck, in a lot of squads you'd get kicked out if you did!

3. Those who fight with their friends. They want to play on the same side as their friends and are not going to switch sides just avoid spawn delay.

What this means is the only group that may actually switch sides to avoid spawn delays are the lone-wolfs who don't care what side they play, and unfortunately I don't think we have enough of those to make the current system work!

Heck, I've even known of a couple of squads who's whole idea was to fight on which ever side was short on numbers that night. Of course a few spawn in on the low pop side, 30mins later when more come on, the other side is now low pop so you ended up with some on one side & some on the other! Oddly these sqauds didn't last.

So given the games long history & the way the player base tend to choose to play, no system that wants you to switch side can possibly work. The solution then has to be artificial balances, be they differing timers, or level of available equipment.

As others have pointed out, the side balance actualy isn't too much of an issue if you have large numbers of players on line. It's when you get down to the really low population times that is really screws things up.

The solution, well, appart from getting a lot more players into the game in all time zones, not really sure, but odds are it will have to be timers or equipment levels.

I wish the Rats all the best with coming up with a solution that pleases most people, because I;m not convinced their is one.