project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mod Forums > PR:BF2 Suggestions
29 Nov 2022, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Developer Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
PR:BF2 Suggestions Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2022-03-14, 16:14   #1
InfantryGamer42
Default Lower deployment requirements for defensive deployable structures

Currently, conventional factions requirements for deployment of defensive deployable structures (foxholes, sandbag-walls and razor wires) are:
  • Must be placed within 200m of a FOB / hideout and at least 200m away from the team's CO-Post and 50m away from Vehicle Depot.
  • 2 large supply crates must be within 200m.
  • A maximum of 9 other foxholes, sandbags or segments of razor wire are within 200m and on that FOB.
  • The team can have up to 60 foxholes, sandbag-walls, segments of razor wire in total.

Requirements are just set to high for those structures to be used, as most players can see in practice from there general lack in games, because most squad leaders:
  1. have more important structures to build on one FOB if they seek to control area with that FOB
  2. on points where they would most likely use those structures (flags), most SL would never place FOB that is needed for them to deploy those structures, as that is waist of one FOB which would be mostly unspawnable during fight for that flag
  3. if SL seeks to deploy flanking FOB for flag assault, defensive deployable structures are just signs "FOB in area" and they are again left unused

In short, only place where those structures would (and probably should) be used are flags, but SL are pushed by current game requirements and logic to not use them because they do not want to waist FOBs, while in any other situation they are not needed. Without going into there in game stats, first and easiest buff to those structures would be lowering of requirements for there deployment which would hopefully make them more attractive.

My suggestion for rework of those requirements is:
  • Must be placed within 200m of large supply crate and at least 200m away from the team's CO-Post and 50m away from Vehicle Depot.
  • 1 large supply crates must be within 200m.
  • A maximum of 9 other foxholes, sandbags or segments of razor wire are within 200m of that large supply crate.
  • The team can have up to 60 foxholes, sandbag-walls, segments of razor wire in total.

This way, those structures can be deployed relatively easily on places where you really need them (but you don't want FOB in same time), while in same time keeping logistical requirement for there deployment.
InfantryGamer42 is offline
Last edited by InfantryGamer42; 2022-03-14 at 16:51.. Reason: Grammar
Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-14, 20:50   #2
rogdozz
Default Re: Lower deployment requirements for defensive deployable structures

This is a great suggestion, I am surprised nobody thought of this before. +1
rogdozz is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-14, 21:40   #3
PatrickLA_CA
Supporting Member

PatrickLA_CA's Avatar
Default Re: Lower deployment requirements for defensive deployable structures

I don't see any downsides to this. +1

In-game: Cobra-PR
PatrickLA_CA is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-14, 22:22   #4
Grump/Gump.45

Grump/Gump.45's Avatar
Exclamation Re: Lower deployment requirements for defensive deployable structures

Now hold up just a minute. I don't have ANY issue placing massive FOBS down for any reason except crate placement Lets not Change this. -1. Its realistic cause you shouldn't and wouldn't put your ammo, building components that far running distance. It should reward the players who know the game functions, not make it easier for those who don't. Crate positioning is such a big mystery to people for build distance on FOBs and further assets, not me

Lets not make the game easier to build emplacements based off distance, lets make it more and keep it realistic. The components come from the crates, empty sandbags, TOW tripod, initial HMG ammo and all. This distance should not be allowed. If this is implemented and the shotgun instant arrest thing isn't changed it makes it adds to the list of un-realistic things.

If you can place the crate 200 meters from the FOB then people can't find it spawning in for you. One issue there. Running distance for ammo, not good. Increased search area for FOBs of enemy when searching off seen crates. For my massive FOBs this would mean ammo could end up further away. It gives 2 messages based on crate distance for FOB building, then if you go too far you need another crate. I just explained why its realistic above.

I already take care of this with dropping crates from logi in 2 different spots for super FOB, even manipulating the distance. No need to change, its no problem. If I know how to take care of the game function and my enemy doesn't I should be rewarded for my early crate placement and knowledge of it. Meaning I get my stuff down faster for coordinating. If I am a better planner or leader it should reward me if enemy doesn't know this stuff.

Its not hard at all, just pay attention to detail. Sometimes its the choppers fault from dropping all the crates in the same spot where it can get mortared. Crates are a sign of enemy FOB nearby within 50 meters. On the search for FOBs you don't want to make the search area bigger for you. It goes for both teams.

When trans drops crates they need to seed our side of the map with crates for back up FOBs, make searching enemy follow decoy crates. The trans needs to give every FOB super FOB supplies when no requests are up.

For the trans to stay alive and available at all times they need to either make no deep incursions to enemy half of map from unknown AA or make all the safer trips first.

Also to build the massive FOBs I do, with foxholes 100-200 meters off the FOB, its not difficult like I said. There is no problem, there is no change. You people want it easier because you aren't coordinating crate drops.

I see so many rookie mistakes from long time players who don't know or are not thinking in the moment. Putting mortars next to the FOB or in cluster with other assets where the counter mortars from enemy can destroy everything close. So build FOBs like mortars on the further 200 meters side away from FOB in center, then foxhole majority on front line 100-200 meters forward.

I myself can and do double up 2 super FOBs without interlacing each others 200 meter max build range. I get down 6 HMGs on burning sands as MEC to hit Olive grove

Here I built 3 super FOBs, the only thing that slowed me down was stupid trans pilot not thinking and dropping all the crates I called to same spot when it requires crate for FOB and build spot.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dusge81aqt8

This suggestion parallels "making the game easy", removing coordination potential for crates position. like with the other issue of shotgun instant arrests the DEVs hopefully see I am right and I am passionate about in the same way cause its un-fair, un-realistic and makes it too easy (for arrests but we stay on FOB topic). It should reward tactics and coordination always.
Grump/Gump.45 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-14, 22:30   #5
PatrickLA_CA
Supporting Member

PatrickLA_CA's Avatar
Default Re: Lower deployment requirements for defensive deployable structures

I think he means being able to build sandbags, foxholes and razorwires without a FOB as long as there's a crate

In-game: Cobra-PR
PatrickLA_CA is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-14, 22:41   #6
Grump/Gump.45

Grump/Gump.45's Avatar
Default Re: Lower deployment requirements for defensive deployable structures

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLA_CA View Post
I think he means being able to build sandbags, foxholes and razorwires without a FOB as long as there's a crate
Razorwire in this game is pointless unless you block a narrow alley. It barely blocks anything compared to trash piles. I get it though. But for a TOW you should need the whole of everything. Foxholes should not require anything but a crate. Yes. I agree.

But the distance thing needs to stay for regular FOBs. We should be able to build Foxholes with just a crate, even better if one man could carry "a hole" in his shovel to dig. With 2 medics and a SL that is 5 foxholes better than nothing. Wish the holes were stronger and/or inground design. Tanks should tank 2 shells to wipe foxholes.

Would also be nice to not have each one be a mound sticking out of the ground for it to hit. Holes in the ground can have ANYTHING thrown at it hit in front, behind or inside.
Grump/Gump.45 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-15, 07:46   #7
[R-MOD]Nate.
Forum Moderator
Project Reality Beta Tester
Supporting Member

Nate.'s Avatar
Default Re: Lower deployment requirements for defensive deployable structures

only risk I see is completely blocking narrow (building) flags etc with foxholes. I like the suggestion but I'd probably limit it to Sandbags or so.

Nate. is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-15, 11:46   #8
InfantryGamer42
Default Re: Lower deployment requirements for defensive deployable structures

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grump/Gump.45 View Post
Crate positioning is such a big mystery to people for build distance on FOBs and further assets, not me
Crate positioning is not a big mystery, as much it is time-consuming (which you usually do not have) and in most cases completely unnecessary. In time you need to place needed crates around, most people can use those crates to place 2+ FOBs around flag and actively defend that flag. Simply, you do not have in normal pub game to play around with crate positioning, specially when they offer marginal gains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grump/Gump.45 View Post
The components come from the crates, empty sandbags, TOW tripod, initial HMG ammo and all.
I am not talking about TOWs, HMGs, AAs and mortars (lets call them offensive deployable structures). This suggestion is exclusively for foxholes, sandbag walls and razor wire (aka defensive deployable structures).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grump/Gump.45 View Post
If this is implemented and the shotgun instant arrest thing isn't changed it makes it adds to the list of un-realistic things.
This is game first, not realism simulator. As such how game works and plays comes before realism.

Second, this suggestion is actually more realistic then what we have currently in game. IRL every soldier with shovel and some logistical supply (which is simulated in suggestion by requirement for 1 large supply crate) can prepare and fortify his position. Need to place 2 crates and then place FOB to then place those structure is extreme complication of IRL process in game, which leads to those structures not being used (and that is before we start talking about there in game stats).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grump/Gump.45 View Post
Also to build the massive FOBs I do, with foxholes 100-200 meters off the FOB, its not difficult like I said. There is no problem, there is no change.
Fact that nobody uses defensive deployable structures shows that there is massive problem and there is need for change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grump/Gump.45 View Post
You people want it easier because you aren't coordinating crate drops.
Nope. First I want to bring those assets back in game to be used. Second, I believe I already pretty much explained hole logic behand lack of there use in first comment. Coordinating crate drops would not fix lack of use of those structures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grump/Gump.45 View Post
It should reward tactics and coordination always.
Which this suggestion does. You still need logistical support in form of 1 large supply crate to deploy those. Point of this suggestion is to allow deployment of those structures in places were you actually mostly really need them, and those are flags, not FOBs. As such, connecting there deployment to FOB is unneeded extra step which doesn't add to anything to mechanic. This suggestion even adds more importance to proper crate placement, because if you place those crates on flags in proper place, you can double amount of those structures you can deploy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grump/Gump.45 View Post
Razorwire in this game is pointless unless you block a narrow alley.
While I can agree with felling that replacing razor wire with 2 or 3 different deployable structures (short and long bared tape like with roadblocks and separate singular tank obstacle), would not agree with there pointlessness. There role is to block off or force specific behavior of the enemy (for example, if you can force enemy to cross street to make them easier targets for you with razor wire, it did its job).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grump/Gump.45 View Post
But for a TOW you should need the whole of everything.
Agree and that is why I did not mention offensive deployable structures in this suggestion thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grump/Gump.45 View Post
Tanks should tank 2 shells to wipe foxholes.
Agree with this also. Assets should take longer for all defensive deployable structures. Area attack, CAS bombs and large C4 should be only ways to "one shot" those defensive structures. But, I think this "rework" would be better place to start with there buffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate. View Post
only risk I see is completely blocking narrow (building) flags etc with foxholes. I like the suggestion but I'd probably limit it to Sandbags or so.
I see what you mean. But I do not think foxholes should be left in this state. Maybe limiting amount of defensive deployable structures per crate to 6 would be better idea, while deployment of FOB would increase that limit for 50% (to current 9 per FOB).
InfantryGamer42 is offline
Last edited by InfantryGamer42; 2022-03-16 at 13:59..
Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-16, 12:37   #9
Brotherscompany
Default Re: Lower deployment requirements for defensive deployable structures

I still have to read other people comments but l have some concerns about this.

I want to see more emplacements in use, l completely agree that they give position away and so on, but lm afraid of the negative impact it might have on the gameplay. Blocking off routes, abusing to make bunkers like in INS and making some flags nearly impossible to take

Honestly l think the PR mappers do a pretty good job most of the times. The flags have good gameplay, key buildings that have strategic importance to have. What if this makes them nearly impenetrable, sure it goes both ways you get heavily punished of you loose that position but is that the gameplay we want?
Brotherscompany is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-16, 13:39   #10
rogdozz
Default Re: Lower deployment requirements for defensive deployable structures

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brotherscompany View Post
What if this makes them nearly impenetrable, sure it goes both ways you get heavily punished of you loose that position but is that the gameplay we want?
Regarding this last sentence: I think a lot of people will agree that we should incentivize defense more over offense. This would be a step towards that. I don't think anyone can know in advance how exactly this change would effect gameplay, so perhaps we should just try it out and if it leads to bad outcomes we just reverse the change in the next patch.
rogdozz is offline Reply With Quote
Reply

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



All times are GMT. The time now is 18:37.