- Reduced FOB count per team to 3
- Fixed python error message when removing a FOB that was never built (error did not affect anything during play tests)
- Fixed requiring distance between multiple TOWs/AAs on a single FOB. You can now place 2 per FOB, period. No more minimum distance requirement.
My first thoughts after having the fortune to play a full round of CnC on a full server yesterday.
It could be the novelty factor but I'd prefer to play CnC over AAS at this point, such a breath of fresh air into an old game. Its plays like AAS-plus imo, requiring far, far more teamwork and coordination on all levels. Squad leader chat can't afford to be crickets in this gameode, the team that can work together the best will win, Period.
To keep it simple heres my list of pros/cons from my limited experience thus far:
PRO'S:
-"Cache like" system worked great at keeping the objectives for the team clear and concise, giving the battle plenty of cohesion/focal points for action.
-Notifications did a great job keeping us engaged in the ever changing dynamics of the battle in what makes for an incredibly fluid gamemode.
-Multiple FOB's hit the perfect goldilocks zone of not too many, not too few. Teams have more freedom to play around with aggressive/defensive/sneaky FOBs, and players always have a way into the battle no getting "locked out".
-the gamemode puts nearly the whole map into play from the get go, the battle positions constantly shifted across the map. No chokepoints or stalemates to be had, teams had to play on their feet very much.
CON's:
-The constant bleeding indication was very confusing and misleading. I actually assumed my team was losing the whole round till the moment we won.
Some kind of sliding scale to indicate which team is winning and too which extent would be a great addition. Knowing your team is winning on FOB placement/ticket bleed ratio could change how you decide to play drastically and vice versa.
Otherwise the assumption is that you need to constantly be on the offense, which might be unnecessary/not the right move.
-Tickets could've probably been higher, it ended up being a very short round even though we didnt win by a particularly wide margin(Silent Eagle CnC for the record)
-Some kind of (drop down?) info box addition to the map screen would've been very beneficial to getting players onboard with the gamemode. Fortunately we had a very helpful admin giving server notifications and reminders explaining the general rules. But without that (and even with that) many players were left unsure how to proceed as the gamemode doesn't quite follow the simple intuitive style of AAS.
Besides that I can't really fault it. This gamemode is a definite winner in my books, now its upto the community (that is very much stuck in their ways) to embrace the change. I really hope to see more of this gamemode in rotation and on new maps going forward. I can't think of many maps that wouldn't play well with CnC, even plenty of smaller maps and historical maps would play well with it.
The core is solid, Besides some additions to the explanations and clarifications around the gamemmode in game, I think the ball is in the communities park now.
Thank you for the feedback. The bleeding needs to be communicated better, I agree. But unfortunately that can not be done without client changes. As such this can not be tested yet. The idea is to use the cap-bar to show who is bleeding stronger right now (you or the enemy)
CAS_ual_TY wrote: 2025-01-22 10:21
Thank you for the feedback. The bleeding needs to be communicated better, I agree. But unfortunately that can not be done without client changes. As such this can not be tested yet.
Would a system like Flag Caps to indicate which side has more "control" of the map and to what extent be feasible? Barring that, even only showing/animating ticket bleed when your team is the one with the unfavorable ratio of FOB's/proximity of FOB's would be a nice placeholder.
You have replied while I was editing my post to be more specific.
Yes, I indeed plan on using flag-caps to show who is bleeding stronger at any point in time. But for this I need to essentially spawn a "fake flag" into the map which requires an edit of the map itself (client changes required). So I can not do that as of now.
I think the current 3-fob version of the rework has the same turtling issues as the old CNC.
1. No attack FOBs
You can't build attack FOBs as you would on AAS/Ins, as it would be too costly. Meaning you have to walk/ride 10+ minutes for each attack, while the enemy still spawns on defense no problem, making atk-def imbalance nearly impossible to overcome, and turtling strats prevalent.
2. Triangles
The winning strat seems to be clustering all 3 fobs together as close to your main as is practical, which will make games repetitive and lacking strategy.
3. Teams are too far apart
It's more fun when objectives are close together so one squad can transition between attacking and defending and back. When the atk and def objectives are 2km apart, it is impractical and the game is much more static.
Not sure how to solve it, but this is one idea:
Separate the FOBs and the objectives (and make the circle smaller).
Make a buildable "Command Post" (or something) that the team can only have 1 of and that generates bleed. The FOBs work the same way as AAS/Ins. Then teams will have both Def and Atk fobs, attacks will be more common and more advantageous.
Such game mode would stay true to PR core FOB mechanics while still following the main idea of CNC: that the teams decide objectives for each other.
P.S. Please make the bleed formula simpler so the person playing can actually understand how the game works
Last edited by Bonvi on 2025-05-24 18:10, edited 2 times in total.
Another issue.
In the triangle meta it may no be such a big problem, but
6 objectives present on the map can spread everyone apart, making it unlikely to have a balanced fight, or even meet the enemy.
There's a reason the devs have given up BF2's CQ in favor of AAS, where you only have 2 objectives at a time: so the gameplay is focused and you always have someone to fight.
It would be better to have 1-2 obj max active at any given time
You could make the super FOBs have to be within 500 meters of each other, 3 TOW, 3 AA. The idea of multiple FOBs over the map is not smart and it is pointless because then you could always have a FOB active. But with the 3 FOBs within 400-500 meters of each other, minimum 200 meters. It just means you make 3 FOBs 1 big FOB.
Ideally as close to your DOD and the middle of the map as possible, balance between that, so your supplies don't get cut off, RTB repairs right there.
If you are not making your FOB maximum size perimeter then you are doing it wrong asking for 1 area attack to destroy everything.
CNC with one FOB hardly makes sense to me anymore but that is firepower issue. Tanks help defend FOB because 1 TOW and 1 HAT kit is no match for multiple armor attacks at the same time.
Example of a CNC FOB with the above standards, we did not lose it once. Having it in open desert saved us from mortar strikes referencing our location. Its bait for armor.
Also take note, 30:25 AA can assist against armor by making them think its the TOW or some other launcher.
1 Man per piece of cover, Move cover to cover. In view of each other to save each other by shooting, distraction, division of enemy attention and ammo. 1 man hit per RPG/tank shell/mortar spread formation full time. Edge of cap zone. Use camouflage, police up each others exposure, no man seen sticking out. Scan aggressively with eyes and ears for anything suspect, even for birds disturbed to fly out of trees
