[Gameplay] Deployable Assets

[Craz3y|Assasin]

I WANT 0.8 NOW.

[[R-DEV]77SiCaRiO77]

can the number of Forward Outposts be diferent in each map? for example maps like kasrahn or quiling will requere more Forward Outposts than mestia or bi ming .

[Cascyth]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]dbzao

3. Commander Approval for Forward Outposts
(...)

Our change here is that you won't need Commander approval to build a Forward Outpost IF your team doesn't have a Commander, BUT you will still need an approval if you DO have a Commander.
(...)

I'm having some mixed feelings about this as there's absolutely no 'penalty' for not having a CO (or bonus, since CO is really important on the battlefield and a team fighting along with the CO should have some serious advantage over the other team that lacks CO).

What about limiting number of deployable FOBs to two when there's no CO?
Or lowering 'health points' of the assets to ~65%?

[[R-DEV]Jaymz]

Originally Posted by Cascyth

since CO is really important on the battlefield and a team fighting along with the CO should have some serious advantage over the other team that lacks CO).

They most definitely will. You'll still need a CO for AreaAttacks (JDAMS) and other toys we have planned for the CO.

[Antonious_Bloc]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz

They most definitely will. You'll still need a CO for AreaAttacks (JDAMS) and other toys we have planned for the CO.

Did you say artillery/airstrikes/orbital bombardment?

And anyway, a CO would still direct squads and quickly pass along vital info, thus keeping your whole team together. A team without a CO would not only lack the commander "toyz" and the cohesiveness,but will most likely end up with 1 or 2 of the FO's in really pointless places.

[[R-DEV]Jaymz]

Originally Posted by Antonious_Bloc

Did you say artillery/airstrikes/orbital bombardment?

Nothing too big ya'know....just a little,

YouTube Video

[jack2665]

sorey this vid is no longear avalbile

[MadTommy]

Commander R.I.P. sad, understandable, but the wrong direction. Teams without a commander should loose. Simple Dont dumb down PR.

[WeeGeez]

Everything is great, though the "You no longer need a commander to deploy assets" isn't too good an idea...

I was thinking that this would maybe de-promote teamplay And that squad leaders placing forward outposts wherever they want, causing conflicts between squad leaders etc (IE using all 4 before they really need them). Also what will happen if one FO needs to destroyed, will there be a "Demolish" button like there was for the commanbder? If so, you would see e players like *ahem* wumwuts *ahem* being SL and demolishing all the assets on the field...

Apart from that, things are looking good

[clueless_noob]

Originally Posted by MadTommy

Commander R.I.P. sad, understandable, but the wrong direction. Teams without a commander should loose. Simple Dont dumb down PR.

Couldn't agree more. Instead of decreasing benefits of an active commander, you should make commander role more appealing by providing CO with tools that are available to CO only. Thus, making it more playable position.

You also should make a team without commander much, much more crippled than it's today. As one of the problems with the current commander model is that game is still playable to some extent without one.