Danger Zone instead of UnCap Base Rule

[alberto_di_gio]

I was just reading the topic of this guy who complained about some unrealistic parts of the PR. Subject already discussed in detail in that thread but I was a little bit stuck with the below issue.

Originally Posted by langdell

yea but the fact is, that if the game is to be realistic they shouldnt limit the players to what the can and cant do (in context). Like for example in some servers 'attacks on carriers can result in a ban', do you really think that in real life an enemy wont assault an enemy carrier?? no! this is highly unrealistic and so is alot of other things like base rape, soldiers are experiencing this on a day to day basis on operations in the likes of Afghanistan, just because someone gets annoyed because someone killed him in the game doesnt mean that the game should accomodate for it!...

We all know that UnCap base rule has its own reasons in which most of the time they are right reasons. Although we can't put away that it is really something very unrealistic. So may be it would be more realistic to make people fear to attack instead of putting rules that restrict them. Of course you DEVs know the best but cant those be done and become effective?

1) AI controlled stationary AAs which automatically lock ant hit enemy planes/choppers which get into certain range of the main base/carrier.

2) High number of AT stations (basicly like the TOW in BF2 but more dangerous) in bunkers which are harder to hit from away.

3) Stationed long range heavy machine guns with armor piercing ammo in.

4) All those assets can be made reapairable.

Basicly things that can not be used in game to take advantage while capturing flags but instead make the main base very dangerous to come closer.

Well... hope sounds not so absurd.

[killonsight95]

i really like the idea, what we need to do is make alot of AI controlled defence systems to stop over base rape, as long as the AI can be killed (maybe respawn after 10 mins or 5 mins) i think it would work

[rampo]

The AI might be a problem but really could use something like that to keep the enemy choppers and planes from camping the main

[Garmax]

I think if you add AI that takes from the amount of actual players in the server, unless you do the thing that you remove birds and stuff and ass bots, but that would lag like a b****

I like the danger zone instead of uncap rule, of course it should be removed when the last base is capped

[alberto_di_gio]

Originally Posted by Garmax

I like the danger zone instead of uncap rule, of course it should be removed when the last base is capped

I think it should not! Actually that would give a fresh air to the loosing team to set up themselves. Ok your team may be sucks and loose all the tickets but that wouldn't mean opposite team should place all their armor power over hills and kill everyone even before they spawn or ruin all vehicles to the ground even before you can heat up the engine!

I think the major idea of danger zone is "you may loose the fight in front flags but still main base is ground zero, cave of the bear, lair of the lion" you should have some balls to go there

P.S: well of course I don't know about the lag thing. that would ruin the automatic AAs

[Safekeeper]

yea but the fact is, that if the game is to be realistic they shouldnt limit the players to what the can and cant do (in context). Like for example in some servers 'attacks on carriers can result in a ban', do you really think that in real life an enemy wont assault an enemy carrier?? no! this is highly unrealistic and so is alot of other things like base rape, soldiers are experiencing this on a day to day basis on operations in the likes of Afghanistan, just because someone gets annoyed because someone killed him in the game doesnt mean that the game should accomodate for it!...

The problem is that PR is supposed to be balanced. When one team has the ability to buzz around in gunships over the enemy main base, killing everyone as they spawn, the game becomes catastrophically unbalanced, ruining the experience for everyone but the twat camping in the gunship.

If you want unbalance, there's games that deliver this - X-Com UFO Defence, for example, saw nothing wrong with positioning four Cyberdisks in a half-circle around the ramp of your Skyranger as it touched down, or subjecting one of the guys in your ship to mind control so that he fires a heavy rocket that blows up everyone before they can even get off. In Falcon 4.0 Allied Force, you can get ordered to go on sorties where you either can't win (for example, if you get tasked with bombing enemy tanks and they are already destroyed when you arrive on station), or where the odds are hopelessly stacked against you (for example, if your four F-16s jumped by ten Mig-29s that command never saw coming).

I don't mind this in those games, because each fight is just a little part of a bigger battle. The same way, I wouldn't mind it in PR if the game was like X-Com or F4AF, and every battle was the result of movement of units on a bigger battle board. Then you'd end up with scenarios where an infantry battalion with next to no AA was subjected to a massive F-15 air strike and never even managed to leave their base.

But the problem is that every round in PR is the whole battle, and that you only have so many maps to choose from, all with fixed force strenghts. If you lose the round, you lose the round. If a map is unbalanced once, it's unbalanced until some developer or modder rectifies the issue.

Saying it's "unrealistic" misses the point entirely.


As for the AI defences idea, I would like to see it implemented if it's technically feasible. If the AI defence objectspawners are tied to the second last CP, they'll stop respawning when that CP falls to the enemy, and the main won't have the defence grid when it's actually supposed to be attacked.