project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mod Forums > PR:BF2 Suggestions
PR Time:
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
PR:BF2 Suggestions Suggestions from our community members. Read the stickies before posting.

Contact Support Team Frequently Asked Questions Register today!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2010, 03:37 PM   #21
Rudd
Retired PR Developer
Supporting Member

Rudd's Avatar
Default Re: Deployable Assets Expansion and the Combat Engineer

Quote:
Originally Posted by RHYS4190 View Post
I think the dev's should focous on fixing 0.9 before they attempt any thing else.

Plus having more static defences is pretty pointless. %99 they are just abandoned, iv never seen a 50cal dug out used for very long. So what the point.
they are only abandoned if they are no longer useful, which is fine, there's no rule in war saying "if you dig a foxhole, you better bloody use it" afaik.

I quite like the idea personally, but I've always liked the idea of having to build things next to vehicles to repair them, much more fun than using log trucks, and takes longer

the PROBLEM is that a buildable repair also encourages camping vehicles, they sit next to it and get repaired while in combat, giving them an edge against a wide range of targets. Not really realistic unless the repair point only repairs for X number of repair points and cannot be deployed again for 3-5mins.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"You the people have the power to make life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure."
I'm AFK until further notice, have fun guys.
Rudd is offline Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 03:47 PM   #22
killonsight95
Supporting Member

killonsight95's Avatar
Default Re: Deployable Assets Expansion and the Combat Engineer

rudd i see the problem but could it be solved by saying it won't repair damage done to the vech in the last 3 mins or it ariving to the repair area/hut/tent/post/temple/whatever else it could be

EDIT: wait temple?????


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
killonsight95 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 03:53 PM   #23
00SoldierofFortune00

00SoldierofFortune00's Avatar
Default Re: Deployable Assets Expansion and the Combat Engineer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elektro View Post
Have you ever played CNC mode?
Not many servers even play that mode, so it really shouldn't be a factor.


As for the suggestion, its just going even more overboard. Not many FOBs are even defended right now. They are basically just taking the place of RPs and being personal spawns for people and if you need 3 or 4 crates to place a TOW or AA, than your FOBs are pretty much screwed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-CON]Rudd View Post
they are only abandoned if they are no longer useful, which is fine, there's no rule in war saying "if you dig a foxhole, you better bloody use it" afaik.
LOL, how many times do you actually see someone stay in an MG at a FOB? 2 minutes max? Unless the FOB is in a known location and you are expecting enemies, almost no one defends them.

"Push the Envelope, Watch It Bend"

Tool ~ Lateralus
00SoldierofFortune00 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 04:15 PM   #24
[R-COM]rushn
Support Technician
Supporting Member

[R-COM]rushn's Avatar
Default Re: Deployable Assets Expansion and the Combat Engineer

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-CON]Rudd View Post
they are only abandoned if they are no longer useful, which is fine, there's no rule in war saying "if you dig a foxhole, you better bloody use it" afaik.

I quite like the idea personally, but I've always liked the idea of having to build things next to vehicles to repair them, much more fun than using log trucks, and takes longer

the PROBLEM is that a buildable repair also encourages camping vehicles, they sit next to it and get repaired while in combat, giving them an edge against a wide range of targets. Not really realistic unless the repair point only repairs for X number of repair points and cannot be deployed again for 3-5mins.
I think the best solution in my opponion would be is to make vehicles locked up when they are repairing which is basicly true in real life
[R-COM]rushn is online now Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 04:56 PM   #25
akatabrask

akatabrask's Avatar
Default Re: Deployable Assets Expansion and the Combat Engineer

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00 View Post
As for the suggestion, its just going even more overboard. Not many FOBs are even defended right now. They are basically just taking the place of RPs and being personal spawns for people and if you need 3 or 4 crates to place a TOW or AA, than your FOBs are pretty much screwed.

LOL, how many times do you actually see someone stay in an MG at a FOB? 2 minutes max? Unless the FOB is in a known location and you are expecting enemies, almost no one defends them.
Well, if they aren't under attack why should you defend them. Let there be different types of firebases - some further back to spawn on light defences such as MGs and barbed wire incase the enemy advance that far; some as fortified defences with lots of heavy equipment at the front line; and some offencive ones, also with heavier equipment to lay down fire at the enemy from strategig points.

And you weren't at all screwed before .9 when you needed two crates for all firebases and still didn't have the TOWs.
akatabrask is offline Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 05:19 PM   #26
Elektro

Elektro's Avatar
Default Re: Deployable Assets Expansion and the Combat Engineer

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00 View Post
Not many servers even play that mode, so it really shouldn't be a factor.
Why shouldnt it be a factor if the gamemode exists? Not everyone might play it, but if you can add something to it that might increase the experience I dont understand why we should just ignore such an awesome gamemode?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Elektro is offline Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 05:54 PM   #27
Pariel
Default Re: Deployable Assets Expansion and the Combat Engineer

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-CON]Rudd View Post
the PROBLEM is that a buildable repair also encourages camping vehicles, they sit next to it and get repaired while in combat, giving them an edge against a wide range of targets. Not really realistic unless the repair point only repairs for X number of repair points and cannot be deployed again for 3-5mins.
Perhaps have it only repair vehicles that haven't fired in the past 60 seconds or something? That's the best thing I can think of, no clue if it's actually implementable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00 View Post
Not many servers even play that mode, so it really shouldn't be a factor.
If the mode exists, it's a factor.

Quote:
As for the suggestion, its just going even more overboard. Not many FOBs are even defended right now. They are basically just taking the place of RPs and being personal spawns for people and if you need 3 or 4 crates to place a TOW or AA, than your FOBs are pretty much screwed.
I disagree -- the best example is Muttrah. I've played quite a few times where myself or other Huey pilots spam crates around Docks and North City to enable 3-4 firebases, and having enough crates is not a problem for any team that is actually playing together.

Quote:
LOL, how many times do you actually see someone stay in an MG at a FOB? 2 minutes max? Unless the FOB is in a known location and you are expecting enemies, almost no one defends them.
That's the point of defenses. You can leave them there, and if the enemy starts pushing your FOB, they give you the extra firepower or cover to prevent the enemy from destroying the FOB. They're not there to encourage camping, that's for sure.
Pariel is offline Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 06:41 AM   #28
Arnoldio

Arnoldio's Avatar
Default Re: Deployable Assets Expansion and the Combat Engineer

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilDog812 View Post
i think that any soldier with a shovel should be able to dig their own crude foxholes without any crates anytime he wants
Nice one, all soldiers should be able to dig one foxhole IMO, but josta small one to fit 1 or 2 in, and not so advanced as the FB ones, but just a hole with dirt wall.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Orgies beat masturbation hands down. - Staker
Arnoldio is offline Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 06:58 AM   #29
HAAN4
Default Re: Deployable Assets Expansion and the Combat Engineer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draakon View Post
Agreed, let the commander do the most building.
Flak cannons are the best AA in game, so long the have a good gunner, since NOTHIG CAN STOP OUR BULLETS!.

misseles can be lured by flares, and to my AA must work toguether to flak cannons, and misseles to be more efective.
HAAN4 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 07:00 AM   #30
AgentMongoose
Default Re: Deployable Assets Expansion and the Combat Engineer

I like the idea except the watch tower having a spawn point.

As for the mg haters once you play in the tourny you
learn to respect those damn things.
AgentMongoose is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
assets, combat, deployable, engineer, expansion
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:41 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO.
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2012, Project Reality.