Limit Firebase Building Locations

[Alex6714]

There is still as much teamwork involved and what I am saying actually keeps the game "fresher" and "more interesting" because the enemy can attack from any direction anytime, so games are never the same.


The way you are suggesting would basically limit combat to head on engagements which are just meat grinders. Yes, RPs can get behind enemy lines, but those don't last forever, especially if the combat is head on. The whole "supply line" idea doesn't mean it literally has to be in a line like WW1. Helos make attacking from behind possible now ala my Kha Shan reference.

You can always attack from behind enemy lines, why do you have to build a fort there?

The point is not sneaking past, its not camping somewhere else, its the simple fact that you can build a fort there. Spawn point, any kits you want, anti air etc.


Tbh, trucks need to go back to having 1 crate only, and 2 crates for a firebase in friendly territory, and if you really want the leet flanking spawn point 4 crates to build on there.

This whole nonsense of one squad or less and their truck that can go and build a fortification anywhere on their own, and simultaneously get anti air and HAT capabilities out of it....

There is nothing teamwork about that, thats just a few guys in a squad. Teamwork would be 2 or 3 squads helping to build a firebase and taking the necessary crates.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

You can always attack from behind enemy lines, why do you have to build a fort there?

The point is not sneaking past, its not camping somewhere else, its the simple fact that you can build a fort there. Spawn point, any kits you want, anti air etc.


Tbh, trucks need to go back to having 1 crate only, and 2 crates for a firebase in friendly territory, and if you really want the leet flanking spawn point 4 crates to build on there.

This whole nonsense of one squad or less and their truck that can go and build a fortification anywhere on their own, and simultaneously get anti air and HAT capabilities out of it....

There is nothing teamwork about that, thats just a few guys in a squad. Teamwork would be 2 or 3 squads helping to build a firebase and taking the necessary crates.

Because an FOB symbolizes the enemy entrenching themselves and their forces behind your lines. Of course an RP can symbolize this too, but thats more of a 1 squad thing, not a good bulk of their forces. And if you don't want them going behind your lines, simply don't let them through or check your rear. FOBs aren't hard to detect and all this seems to be is an excuse for something that doesn't even happen that often.

Since when do 2 or 3 squads build 1 firebase nowadays either, even in friendly territory? Almost never. Firebases are primarily 1 squad things ingame. If you have a problem with squads going off on their own and building, then you should be advocating the return of the CO approved build orders. You can't expect squads not to go off on their own and build if they have the capibilities.

[Rudd]

Because an FOB symbolizes the enemy entrenching themselves and their forces behind your lines. Of course an RP can symbolize this too, but thats more of a 1 squad thing, not a good bulk of their forces. And if you don't want them going behind your lines, simply don't let them through or check your rear. FOBs aren't hard to detect and all this seems to be is an excuse for something that doesn't even happen that often.

Since when do 2 or 3 squads build 1 firebase nowadays either, even in friendly territory? Almost never. Firebases are primarily 1 squad things ingame. If you have a problem with squads going off on their own and building, then you should be advocating the return of the CO approved build orders. You can't expect squads not to go off on their own and build if they have the capibilities.

Seriously, I want to join a server with you on it. You go on USMC, I'll be on MEC. I want to see you stop me building a FOB behind u in USMC flag all game.

It is true that generally 1 squad build a FB. But it isn't a 1 squad asset, any squad can spawn there. So its like the enemy are using a teleortation device to circumvent the other team's forward lines. <- which is the reason I don't mind rally points.

Alternative idea coming in - When FB is placed in enemy flag, you can't spawn on it. Only when flag becomes friendly can you spawn on it. It wouldn't prevent the less desirable tactics of setting up fortified positions in enemy flags (my opinion) but it would prevent the teleportation tactic.

And no, I don't expect squads not to go off and do there own thing....HENCE I'M SUGGESTING WAYS TO STOP IT.....silly....

Tis fortunate that the barracuda tactic isn't allowed on the iGi server. In our server we have a "NO GO" policy for AAS maps. If its a main, you are not allowed to enter until cappable.

[Antonious_Bloc]

I don't know about your suggestions, but I'd like firebases to be built other places than in your flag radius. I don't know about enemy flags, but a lot of "neutral" territory should definitely be able to construct them. It seems easier to leave it as is; I've played since 0.6 and have never seen this other than a flag flipping while a firebase is already built behind it.

[Alex6714]

Almost every muttrah game I play it is attempted, often succeeding. I am not suggesting your flag radius, but your flag radius + x metres. However not right miles behind enemy lines.



And I wish people would take some time and re read the thread, cos 80% are missing the point entirely.

[Rudd]

^ Well, I'll collate some of the comments to the first post to help later (from both sides of the debate)

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Seriously, I want to join a server with you on it. You go on USMC, I'll be on MEC. I want to see you stop me building a FOB behind u in USMC flag all game.

It is true that generally 1 squad build a FB. But it isn't a 1 squad asset, any squad can spawn there. So its like the enemy are using a teleortation device to circumvent the other team's forward lines. <- which is the reason I don't mind rally points.

Alternative idea coming in - When FB is placed in enemy flag, you can't spawn on it. Only when flag becomes friendly can you spawn on it. It wouldn't prevent the less desirable tactics of setting up fortified positions in enemy flags (my opinion) but it would prevent the teleportation tactic.

And no, I don't expect squads not to go off and do there own thing....HENCE I'M SUGGESTING WAYS TO STOP IT.....silly....

Tis fortunate that the barracuda tactic isn't allowed on the iGi server. In our server we have a "NO GO" policy for AAS maps. If its a main, you are not allowed to enter until cappable.

Most of this would pretty much be solved if the Engineer was simply not allowed to build FOBs.

[McBumLuv]

I've managed to get FOBS and AA at docks on numerous occasions, all the while the USMC would hold control of the flag. And it would only require a small squad with me, usually only about 3 or 4 other people. It's unfortunately still useful to the team as well to have this small FOB used by 1 squad with lots of supplies, as you don't even need to hold contacts with other troops to shoot down all the helicopters passing over easily.

I really would like a distinction between FOBs in friendly territory, those out of the flags' radios, and those in enemy flags' radios, but more significant than simply an appearance change.

How about Bunkers are deployed in friendly flag radii, and require only 2 crates, Firebases are built 300 meters away from flags, but require 3/4 crates, and a few deployable assets can't be built. Finally, no bunker can be built within 300 meters of a neutral or enemy flag, and any bunker previously built in a friendly flag that gets captured/neutralized is unspawnable?

I like the idea, and it would bring some more meaning and substance to the team lines in the battle.

[sickly]

Still trying to get the point across huh Dr2B Rudd?

IMO you should just concentrate on gameplay and leave arguments from RL out of it because clearly the concept of implied zones-of-control (representing RL controlled areas) is not getting through to people.

This is the argument: prevents said gameplay exploit (to a degree) thereby urging players to play in the main combat area (i.e. eliminates said "tactic", thus promoting combat over preventing-other-team-from-using x, esp. in AAS mode).

I think part of the problem is that they seem to think this is a legitimate form of flanking or something.

This kind of BS is rampant in vBF2: players (kids probably) avoid fighting and spend more time sneaking back to cap rear flags and trying to prevent you from using assets/vehicles. Gameplay gets really stale and tedious really fast.

lol I remember some players would just get tired of it and not bother chasing after them; just ignored them and kept playing on the front until the noobs finally took all the rear CPs--having destroyed everything the C4 would stick to. Boring gameplay to say the least--of course, even if you played normally, the goddamn all-seeing UAV would cause every battle to become one of attrition (unless 1 pro liquidated everybody on the front with his God-like mouse-pointing/dolphine-diving/bunnyhopping/teabagging skills).

PR is for mature players and should be nothing like that.

Tis fortunate that the barracuda tactic isn't allowed on the iGi server. In our server we have a "NO GO" policy for AAS maps. If its a main, you are not allowed to enter until cappable.

I would say that "house rules" should be avoided whenever possible; if you can prevent a player from taking advantage of an exploit in the game by adding restrictions, then better to do so rather than have to keep reminding noobs/disrespectful players that this or that is against the rules.

Makes for a more solid game (and less tedious for admins).

And I wish people would take some time and re read the thread, cos 80% are missing the point entirely.

LOL Welcome to public gaming forums.

Seriously, most of these people talking about this as a "tactic" are almost certainly kids (at least mentally, if not in actuality). They will not be convinced by your rational arguments, because they are not thinking objectively (i.e. they are thinking about how they personally like to use this exploit, not about it's general effect on gameplay).