Jumping Roof of Depot to CP - instant death

[TR6AL]

No. That is something completely different. The objects themselves would need to be modified or the complete inf model to change the way it moves. 

[Jsilec]

On 4/17/2021 at 10:41 AM, usaf77 said:

It might be more realistic but it will make camping worse. Think about it? Now everyone is going to run out of one or two doors where'as jumping made hitting a moving target out of depots more difficult.

Use smoke

[tater]

6 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

Use smoke

Good point.

Also, and maybe @TR6AL knows how this works, we have some depots in game that work like the barracks, and there is more than one, and players spawn randomly (?) at one of the options. There are typically 4 barracks, and I think I have seen 3 Depots in a row a few places?

Would it be possible in SOME town (not city, someplace smaller) to experiment a little and have a CP with more than one Depot, and then not right next to each other?

In some towns we have a section of town with a couple facilities far away from the rest of town. Some have no spawnable there ("farm," "city," etc). This sometimes have "camp proof" CPs that are completely surrounded by buildings.

What do people think of a spawnable CP that has a more difficult to camp CP?

What do people think of a CP that might have 2+ Depots that are not situated so 1 unit can cut access to the CP?

@delems has often advocated for reducing the height of the Depots, and I have suggested perhaps changing the CPs themselves. It never occurred to me until now that in addition to possibly rethinking both structures, the mechanism for mitigating "spawn castles" might already exist within the broader context of, well, keeping fixed spawn points.

If towns generally have a linked "spawnable" in the 4 compass directions, I wonder what could be done with that existing idea, added to the concept that we know that players can spawn randomly in at least 4 places per spawn (the barracks, multiple Depots, tent locations at FB, or indeed within a Depot (3rd vs 2nd floor).

The Depots look goofy, so part of me wants them gone, and replaced with a building that actually looks like it belongs in a town. The same is true of the CPs. Both look like game buildings, not an actual building. But not changing them to start, what about spreading 2-3 Depots out at a CP, none right on top of the CP. What about the idea of a few Depots linked to one CP spread over some frontage? Garages pointing different ways, too, so 1 ET cannot camp them?

Not thought out well, but it seems interesting to me.

[usaf77]

To be able to fly on a broomstick onto a CP window ledge is ridiculous. Its gamey as hell.

[usaf77]

1 hour ago, Jsilec said:

Use smoke

The smoke is weak and you have to get close enough to the door to use it, which means your probably going to end up dead. And anyway you have to run out into the open probably out of the smoke right into the campfest where the Tanker regulars have their stats contest with are grunt serf carcasses.

Its a veritable cornucopia of floating skulls. And if your arguing"realism" I dont remember infantry running out of many depots in the actual war.

[TR6AL]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Also, and maybe @TR6AL knows how this works, we have some depots in game that work like the barracks, and there is more than one, and players spawn randomly (?) at one of the options. There are typically 4 barracks, and I think I have seen 3 Depots in a row a few places?

Would it be possible in SOME town (not city, someplace smaller) to experiment a little and have a CP with more than one Depot, and then not right next to each other?

@taterI have not really had a reason to look at these or experiment , but I think there would be no reason why I could not use one facility with multiple spawn points and spread them around town. Not sure I would want to do this because when a player wants to spawn in, they want to know where they are spawning. No point trying to spawn in to clear a cap building when you might end up 2k outside town ..and have to keep spawning in to possibly get to the right location .

It get difficult experimenting when if it doesn't work , we have to re-compile and then put out another update to fix it . 

[tater]

26 minutes ago, TR6AL said:

@taterI have not really had a reason to look at these or experiment , but I think there would be no reason why I could not use one facility with multiple spawn points and spread them around town. Not sure I would want to do this because when a player wants to spawn in, they want to know where they are spawning. No point trying to spawn in to clear a cap building when you might end up 2k outside town ..and have to keep spawning in to possibly get to the right location .

It get difficult experimenting when if it doesn't work , we have to re-compile and then put out another update to fix it . 

I was not thinking all over town, I was thinking in a REGION of a town.

Random town has 4 links, N, S, E, and W. Also has an AB, and maybe another facility or two (farm, RR, sheep lingerie factory). If the town was one where the linked CPs are towards the edges of town, you still have the multiple depots near the CP—meaning the East CP might have 2-3 Depots, and they are all on the east side of town, but they are not next to each other, next to the CP. The are spread over the E side in general. So if you spawn in to defend the 1 spawnable against the enemy, you pick that CP, and all of the places you might spawn are on that side of town.

[TR6AL]

interesting idea.. 

[jwilly]

Re-concept the game so that camping isn't a fundamental element of territory capture, and it'd make total sense to "fix" campability.

Until then, asking that camping be removed (for your side) with no victory mechanic to replace it is just a request to break the game's design.

[tater]

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

Re-concept the game so that camping isn't a fundamental element of territory capture, and it'd make total sense to "fix" campability.

Until then, asking that camping be removed (for your side) with no victory mechanic to replace it is just a request to break the game's design.

It means you have to hold the CP is all.

Many CPs fall without being camped. I tend to see nasty Depot camping most when the side doing it is OP, actually. Seems like a lever for the UP side. Parking armor right next to a Depot would be less of a thing since some ATGs could spawn to a flank of the armor trying that. They could still camp the side of town in question from a distance.

Given that no such change would take place universally, every town would have to be done individually, trying it in a few places just adds variability. If those towns were to become impossible to cap (or recap), that would demonstrate your concern is real. If they play differently, but still fall... it's maybe not a problem.

[fidd]

On 4/18/2021 at 2:36 AM, goreblimey said:

Seems a little too heavy handed. Jumping from the garage catwalk to the garage inside the spawn should NOT cause damage, remember our toons have no climb/clamber hang and drop mechanism. Redesign the spawn or pull this damage until you do. 

is there no safe way down avoiding the damage?

[tater]

1 minute ago, fidd said:

is there no safe way down avoiding the damage?

When the patch was still up, I wounded myself simply running down the interior stairs. ANY fall that results in the avatar making a grunting noise started me bleeding out.

[fidd]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

When the patch was still up, I wounded myself simply running down the interior stairs. ANY fall that results in the avatar making a grunting noise started me bleeding out.

That's not ideal, although I applaud the effort to prevent muppets from leaping out onto roofs. Out of curiosity, what happened if you walked down the stairs?

Edited May 4, 2021 by fidd

[TR6AL]

As far as I know the impact is getting toned down a bit reducing damage. The spawn building can also get adjusted if it needs to to reduce distance and smooth stairs. 

[fidd]

25 minutes ago, TR6AL said:

As far as I know the impact is getting toned down a bit reducing damage. The spawn building can also get adjusted if it needs to to reduce distance and smooth stairs. 

I think that this would be worthy thing to occur regardless, especially removing the 3rd storey. I also really liked the idea someone posed where there were several spawnable depots around a cp. Although, I think in that scenarario there would need to be some means of progressively reducing those.

Lets say every cp had 3 spawnable buildings within 100m or so. When you cap the cp, only one initially of them becomes spawnable by you. However the defenders cannot now spawn from any of the three. The longer you continuously hold the cp, the more of the three spawnables you get to use, until you can use all 3. I would suggest 10 minute intervals? Another way might be to have flags in the 3 depots as well requiring capture?

[tater]

1 hour ago, fidd said:

That's not ideal, although I applaud the effort to prevent muppets from leaping out onto roofs. Out of curiosity, what happened if you walked down the stairs?

It was possible to walk down the stairs and not get damaged. OTOH, some drops, like the unclimbable drop to the ground level (interior or fire escape) resulted in a grunt, and injury.

[TR6AL]

The buildings are not getting changed as far as number of floors , possibly just minor things like smooth stairs . No major changes. 

[fidd]

33 minutes ago, TR6AL said:

The buildings are not getting changed as far as number of floors , possibly just minor things like smooth stairs . No major changes. 

That's fair enough for now. Although it would be cool to look at the number of storeys as a long term project, especially if ultimately a form is distributed spawning from depots (plural) ever gets some traction. (which I thought to be an interesting idea)